Is this all true?

[theist]

 

 

Yeah actually it is irrelevant to me. I don't believe there was a King of the elephants walking through the forest with his entourage and then was bitten by this crocodile and was thus prompted to pray to the Lord for deliverance.

 

I see myself as being bitten and held by the crocodile of time and I see the way to recify the situation exemplified by Gajendra in this story. This is the relevant part or what I call the essence of the story.

 

 

 

No you are taking the example I gave farther than it is meant to be taken. I accept the spirtual world to be one of spiritual form. I accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead as having a transcendental form.

 

Nevertheless I still accept this story as something other than factual history. I alsao cxonsider it ireelevant if anyone else thinks as I do on this issue as long as they accept the essence which is Gajendra's interaction with the Lord.

 

Please don't read anymore into my point than this.

 

Maybe you will care to show how Gajendra as a literal being is essential to your spiritual life?

[theist]

 

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.

 

Nice and clear.

[theist]

Originally posted by Guruvani

 

Fables and Fairytales of the Bhagavatam - The Paroksha Method

 

This topic is going to deal with the paroksa method of instruction and give examples of the paroksa (indirect) method of enlightening the conditioned souls of the world through use of fables, fairytales and stories that are allegorical in nature but serving the purpose of higher knowledge.

 

Lets begin this topic with a statement from Srila Prabhupada from Srimad Bhagavatam Canot 4, ch. 28, verse 65 - purport.

 

Quote:

There are many similar stories in the purāṇas for self-realization. As stated in the Vedas: parokṣa-priyā iva hi devāḥ. There are many stories in the Purāṇas that are intended to interest ordinary men in transcendental subjects, but actually these refer to real facts. They are not to be considered stories without a transcendental purpose. Some of them refer to real historical facts. One should be interested, however, in the real purport of the story. Indirect instruction is quickly understandable for a common man. Factually the path of bhakti-yoga is the path of hearing directly about the pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead (śravaṇaḿ kīrtanaḿ viṣṇoḥ [sB 7.5.23]), but those who are not interested in hearing directly about the activities of the Lord, or who cannot understand them, can very effectively hear such stories and fables as this one narrated by Nārada Muni.

 

So, lets begin this topic with this instruction from Srila Prabhupada that admits and explains that there are certain stories and "fables" in the Bhagavatam and the other Puranas that serve a purpose of teaching through allegory certain concepts and principles of spiritual knowledge that are useful for the conditioned souls in helping them understand the lessons of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Srila Prabhupada points out in the purport that:

 

"those who are not interested in hearing directly about the activities of the Lord, or who cannot understand them, can very effectively hear such stories and fables as this one narrated by Nārada Muni"

 

[...]

 

 

 

 

Fables are fictional, but they are supposed to serve a higher purpose by making complicated concepts more easily available to the conditioned souls through a remedial course of instruction that helps along the less intelligent and the less educated.

[...]

 

 

It is a device that Srila Prabhupada and the Bhagavatam both use in nurturing along neophytes to a stage where they can realize the difference between a fable and an actual fact and be at a level where higher instruction will not confuse them.

[suchandra]

 

It is a device that Srila Prabhupada and the Bhagavatam both use in nurturing along neophytes to a stage where they can realize the difference between a fable and an actual fact and be at a level where higher instruction will not confuse them.

 

To distinguish between fact and fable, reminds of a conversation, see below, where disciples wanted to know, what is the actual situation now, did George Harrison donate his house or not?

Meanwhile the devotees were living in that house and Prabhupada's sannyasis felt to ask him, fact or fable, do we own the building or what?

 

PRABHUPADA: Our George Harrison, he also liked KRSNA book.

HARI-SAURI: Yes. We sold so many KRSNA books on the strength of showing them that…

PRABHUPADA: George Harrison.

HARI-SAURI: …Introduction from George Harrison.

PRABHUPADA: Yes. And I have acknowledged his contribution and blessed him as good boy. And because he served Krishna, then later on he became inclined to give us that house.

TAMAL KRSNA: Has that house been transferred actually yet?

PRABHUPADA: Never mind what is the… We are using it. If he says “Go out,” we shall go out. What is that? We are not after property.

TAMAL KRSNA: And he’ll never say that.

PRABHUPADA: No. I don’t think he’s so mean-minded. No. He’s not mean-minded. He’s a good boy. I’ve studied.

TAMAL KRSNA: Ravi Shankar has taken advantage of him. These two pujaris, the two brothers…

PRABHUPADA: They’re ideal.

TAMAL KRSNA: …they look like they’re out of the Chaitanya-charitamrta. They appear as two persons right out of that book.

PRABHUPADA: Yes. Very good boys.

TAMAL KRSNA: Vaikuntha men.

PRABHUPADA: Oh, yes. They do not know except the duty. Very good boys.

TAMAL KRSNA: Perfect team of brothers.

PRABHUPADA: Oh, yes. Therefore Krishna has brought them here in Mayapura. Previously they were advanced, all of you. You are simply born because the mission was to be started. Just like in Yadu-vamsa Krishna ordered all the devotee demigods to “Go and take birth there to help Me.” Similarly, you are also… You were born in Europe, America, to help this. Otherwise you were devotees in you past lives. I have explained that in my recent writings. The purport was mam eti: goes to Krishna where His pastime is going on, and then they are transferred to the original. So all the devotees picked up and they were placed together where Krishna is having His pastimes in either of these innumerable universes. He’s going on. Just the moving… The sun is moving-little, little, little. So Krishna’s pastimes go on—this universe, that universe, that universe, that universe. In some universe He’s present. In all universes present, that is called nitya-lila. So those who are advanced, perfect devotees, first of all they are sent there and then, further trained up, they enter. Mam eti. Just like after passing the administration examination he’s made one assistant of some magistrate, and then gradually he’ll be promoted up to the high-court judge.

HARI-SAURI: When we were in New York this last summer you said that the spiritual master also has associates who appear along with him to help him in his mission.

PRABHUPADA: Yes. Krishna wants His assistants; the spiritual master also requires assistant. Everything is going on under Krishna’s direct supervision. Mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram [Bhagavad-gita 9.10].

isvarah sarva-bhutanam

hrd-dese ‘rjuna tisthati

bhramayan sarva-bhutani

yantrarudhani mayaya [bg. 18.61]

[krishnadasa]

 

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.

 

And thats exactly what I have been trying to tell people..

Hari bol

[raghu]

Kimfelix,

 

Of the different pramanas, or modes of acquiring right knowledge, only that pramana that is not based on human limitations can possibly give knowledge about that which is presently beyond human perception.

 

Most religious traditions assert authority to their scriptures for various reasons, but even taking them all at their word, their scriptures are the product of human authorship and thus they cannot be objectively held to be beyond flaws. Saying that the author was "divinely inspired" or that he was an incarnation of God or met some angel requires additional, non-verifiable assumptions about the spiritual status of the author and his intent to enlighten instead of deceive.

 

In the Vedantic tradition, Vedas (shruti-pramana) are considered apaurusheya - unauthored. They are eternal in nature and not the product of any human being, not even God. The Vedas mention things such as rishi, deva, and meter with each sukta but they never mention an author. Nor are the Vedas traditionally remembered as having an author or being an authored work - note that this is different from saying "known to be authored but author presently unknown." Even classical opponents of Vedanta (i.e. Buddhists) did not challenge their unauthoredness. It is only modern scholars in academia who assert that the Vedas are the composition of various sages, but they have no proof and the Vedas themselves do not say this.

 

True knowledge is not flawed. Flaws are a function of a living being's imperfections or ignoble motives. Thus an authored work is naturally suspect, while an unauthored work could at least conceivably deliver flawless knowledge about that which is beyond the scope of human senses. Thus, one might naturally prefer to study the Veda for this reason.

 

Scriptures like the Bhagavata Purana are not exactly in the same category as the Veda because they have an author. Their authority is thus dependent on the Veda. Still, because the author wrote it to help explain the essence of the Vedas, it is good to go to the Bhagavata and similar smritis to help understand the apaurusheya Vedas.

 

Hope this helps. Good luck.

[Dark Warrior]

 

 

So, does that mean:

 

1) You accept that the Bhagavata Purana contains spiritual information that is essentially the truth. Which means, all souls are subservient to the Lord, etc.

 

2) You do not accept this story as historical although the Bhagavata Purana presents it as a historical fact.

 

So, here lies the controversy. The author of the Purana is spiritual, but by claiming the Gajendra story as true, he is lying.

 

If he had wanted to call it an allegory, he would have mentioned it.

 

And here is another thing. You accept the inner meaning of the elephant story? Well, the inner meaning was actually brought out by Sri Periyavacchan Pillai in the first place. And that particular acharya has maintained that the incident happened. So, the proposer of the meanings to the story accepts it as historical.

 

Pratyaksha is applicable in the sense that yo must consider scripture as unadulterated truth. What is presented as truth is truth. There are examples of allegory in the Bhagavatam. Those are covered fully.

 

 

 

When you are admitting that the Bhagavatam is lying about the incident being historical, how can you accept Sri Hari's form?

 

 

 

Gajendra and the crocodile were both devas who were cursed to be born in Bhu Loka. The incident is important because Lord Vishnu acquired the name of Hari only after saving both of them from the curse.

 

And after rescuing the elephant, the Lord stayed as Varadaraja in archa form in Bhu Loka. Denying this means two things - 1) you are calling the author of Bhagavatam (Vyasa) a liar because he presented it as historical, 2) You are denying an avatar of Vishnu.

 

So what next? Varaha is a myth? Rama and Krishna is a myth? So we go back to square one again, just get the essence and forget its historicity.

 

All religions have belief systems. But since Vedanta is the highest knowledge, only that which is espoused by Vedanta is taken as the truth.

 

But Vaishnavism isn't about Parables, but about how the Lord takes an avatar and shows His kalyana gunas. Lord Hari rescuing Gajendra was an avatar, and the elephant can speak because he wasn't a normal elephant.

[tackleberry]

Strange how certain 'devotees' feel the Gajendra story is illogical and absurd, even as they believe in resurrection and the rest, which also go against perception, logic, and virtually every other pramaana. Scriptures mention the 4-armed form of Vishnu, as well as the Gajendra story. Neither can be established by pratyaksha, yet some 'devotees' believe in the former, whilst ridiculing those who believe in the latter. Hypocrisy? Ignorance?

[Dark Warrior]

The point I am trying to make is that, pratyaksha is completely valid, as long as shruti and smriti's authority remain intact. This is what Sri Ramanujar and even other Vaishnava Acharyas say.

 

When you take the 'essence' of a story and decide that it didn't happen at all based on your own conclusions, it means you are putting yourself above the sastras. Of Course, there are certain stories that are definitely allegories, such as the stories related by a Sage to Yudhishtira when he was in exile, but it is always clearly and coherently mentioned as allegory.

 

There is no doubt that stories such as Gajendra have an inner meaning. Lord Vishnu never does anything without a purpose. But we have the same book claiming this story to also be historical. And as for the 'essence', let us not forget that these 'essences' were brought out by our acharyas, who were great jnanis. The same acharya who revealed the essence also accepted it as historical.

 

The reason why you accept this as historical is simple. While a parable is an allegory for a moral, this story illustrates the qualities of God, therfore, it is a historical fact. He won't give us allegories to illustrate His greatness...He will descend Himself to show us firsthand.

 

Now, pratyaksha is significant. There are no talking elephants, so we can't say it happened. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The book talks about other lokas, so there is evidence that it is beyond the senses. Pratyaksha is certainly valid in the sense that scripture can be reinterpreted. For instance, I read a book where someone explained the cosmology of the Srimad Bhagavatam in accordance with mordern science. This is acceptable. Simply denying things makes you an authority over scripture.

 

We have a vast body of literature, ie, Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Ithihasas, and ancillory texts. Despite this, there isn't one hint of contradiction anywhere in all of them, proving their merit. Therfore, accept what the rishis say. Approach it with a scientific mind, and understand properly.

[theist]

 

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"> Originally Posted by theist

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.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

And thats exactly what I have been trying to tell people..

Hari bol

 

And meeting much resistence I am sure. Seems some people would rather have someone reject the eternal truths found in the Bhagavatam if they can't swallow every allegory as historical.

 

This is short-sighted fanaticism in my book.

[theist]

For those that disagree with us ...fine, no problem. I have no need to defend my position or to attempt to make you change yours. Explain it sure. Discuss it a bit... why not? Debate it... not worth the time.

[vijay]

 

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.

 

Similar to what Kulapavan prabhu said, from my understanding we are all very limited in understanding and experience so any higher knowledge even in day to day life has to be accepted on faith, not just on religious matters.

 

From choosing a university or believing in a place called australia to accepting a road map, we need initial faith based on a resonable amount of evidence, eg other people have used the university, been to australia, or used the road map and vouch for it.

 

Sabda = authority (Follow the road map it will get you to London)

 

Anuman = Logic (It looks like its working the first few streets where correct, the direction seems to be as told by others - let me carry on - faith builds)

 

Pratyaksha = Direct sense perception (I've arrived in London)

 

Same thing with going to australia, there is no way we can prove to you australia exists, even if you see it on tv and others say they have been, only when we follow instructions to get there and finally arrive there do we actually realise australia.

 

In the same way. Others claim to of seen god face to face, there are books describing how to get to him.

 

We may not believe everything initially as it doesnt make sense to us, but as we progress we realise that it works, same with mathematics initially we can understand that 2+2 =4 works and its logical and we can easily use exapmles to understand, but calculus seems far fetched

and abstract, but once we continue on the path it becomes more understandable.

From a faith based understanding eg. 2+2=4

to a logical, making sense understanding and when we implement it to a direct sense perception understanding eg when we use apples or something.

 

In terms of which religions to use. like anthing else initial research is required before choosing a university.

 

So if our aim is to know god which religions teach this, and how effectively.

 

Just like in a pharmacy there may be many brands of medicine with slightly different ingredients to tackle the flu, people will choose them based on different criteria's but all have the same active ingredient. Ie to know god.

 

For me I came to Krishna conciousness as it made more sense to me as it gave me more depth than other religions

 

I narrowed down my search using certain criterias like it must be able to answer certain questions.

eg why are people born differently etc, and so I accepted reincarnation backed up by other pieces of evidence like ian stevensons research into child memories and birth marks.

 

In Krsna conciousness I saw a step by step process like a road map which shows the signs that one has as he gets higher and higher levels of conciousness in a detailed manner, (Scriptures like madhurya Kadambini and Nector of devotion). To the point where you see Krsna face to face.

 

The science is of elevating your conciousness to the point we realise we are not this body and we are conected in loving servcie to the Lord.

 

Just like in every day life when we are selfish we feel a certain type of conciousness and when we give to others we feel a different type of conciousness. Some people are more sensitive to others as they are more concious of other entities suffering, others are more self centered so less concious to their suffering, so the science is of becoming concious and cleaning the conciousness as to be aware and eventually to be able to see god face to face.

 

As with all things the taste is in the pudding. We may try different processes and in the trial and error we become more aware of what works for us, we usually dont move up in a straight line.

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, I am not sure about your claim that there is not a hint of contradiction in the Vedic texts. For example, the Kena Upanishad and the Bhagavad Gita appear to have opposing views on upasana. Of course the commentators can reconcile the differing statements, but there is at least a hint of contradiction there.

 

Others seem to suggest that first you have a little faith and so you try to follow the path that is recommended and then you gain the experience that confirms the revelation of scripture. If only it could be so for all. There are many who have followed the spiritual path so carefully but have not gained the experience. So they give it up. Apostasy is rife in all expressions of religion. That suggests that it is not quite such a simple matter.

 

And then there are so many texts and so many different paths open to us. Where does that little bit of faith come from? It really isn't like having faith in going to Australia. All who go there have a common experience of arrival and come back and tell of it; it is not like that with spirituality, it is such an individual thing.

 

I think at times I have tried to have faith and even pretended to have it, which is shameful, but when I confronted myself with a cruel honesty I knew I was just hoping and so pretending.

 

In any case I have to rely on my own powers to interpret an experience, to decide whether or not it is spiritual. I think at times I claimed to have had spiritual experience, but how could I tell the difference between something emotional and something spiritual? I don't know what a spiritual experience is. And at other times I think I was deceiving myself because I wanted so much to be a person of faith; it makes life so much clearer.

[bhaktajan]

Darky-ji,

 

The Upanishads are expositions on the impersonal aspect of Bhagavan.

 

The Gita is a chapter of Krishna's pastimes while He appeared on earth 5,000 year ago in the Royal Dynasty that had ruled the planet at that time.

 

The Gita is directly a concession to the living entities embarking upon the on-coming age of Kali.

 

The Gita's contents are the essense of the teachings of God to the living entities to attain moksha.

 

The Gita battle field setting has a captive audience held by a stick rather than a carrot -- so, likewise, Krishna has spoken the Gita and Vyasadeva has transcribed the Gita (Mahabharata) for the common-minded every-day, run-of-the-mill, ordinary, simple, plain multitudes of our folks to comprehend the personage of Krishna and thus Vedanta.

[skp]

Hello Kimflex,

 

If you feel that there is not even 0.1 % of Srimad-Bhagavatam that you cannot believe then probably you require more time to come to the path of bhakti.

 

But, if you have at least that 0.1% of faith, then you should continue reading and slowly everything will be revealed to you...

 

Of course, associating with senior devotees will also help a lot!

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

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.

[theist]

 

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.

 

Srila Prabhupada famous statement of, "By the grace of Krsna one gets guru by the grace of guru one gets Krsna", contains the answer to the dillema you describe. First one prays in earnest for the Lord as Supersoul to guide you to your guru and we pray by His grace a genuine guru. To the level of sincerity it will be so. The Lord tells us in Gita that as Supersoul He directs the wanderings of all conditioned souls.

 

The intellect will always be insufficent to reveal Krsna's devotee. At best it will give some indication on who might be devotee of Krsna but without revelation it nothing will be solidified.

 

I am not talking about the clouds parting in the sky and a ray of light landing on someone's head. The revelation comes by establishment of faith. The Lord tells us in Gita that as Supersoul He makes the faith steady of those seeking a particular type of demigod to worship. Same principle when revealing His representative.

 

First step is Krsna's grace.

[vijay]

You have some good reasoning, I have also had similar doubts that you have had after not feeling anything on the path for many years.

 

 

Others seem to suggest that first you have a little faith and so you try to follow the path that is recommended and then you gain the experience that confirms the revelation of scripture. If only it could be so for all. There are many who have followed the spiritual path so carefully but have not gained the experience. So they give it up. Apostasy is rife in all expressions of religion. That suggests that it is not quite such a simple matter.

 

You are correct that its not the same for everyone as everyone has different conditionings. Krsna says that obtaining bhakti is very rare even though its easy to obtain if one is sincere. Therefore there are many paths Krsna mentions for different types of mind sets, eg karma, jnanna, yoga etc.

 

As theist mentions one must do this under guidance. As in any non trival process one needs a guide, becoming a doctor, learning at university etc etc. Ones own mind is insufficient, one who has seen the truth can guide someone from kindergarten stage to his own stage without this learning from just books is prone to obscuring the real meaning through the filter of the mind which we can not see we are doing.

 

 

And then there are so many texts and so many different paths open to us. Where does that little bit of faith come from? It really isn't like having faith in going to Australia. All who go there have a common experience of arrival and come back and tell of it; it is not like that with spirituality, it is such an individual thing.

 

 

There are many texts available however the highest goal is for you to decide. The different paths can take you to different places as the goal may be different.

 

Even with spiritual life all who get the highest realisation describe being completely intensely in love with krsna completely satisfied and unattached to anything material as a consequence, manifesting physical symptoms, aswell as claiming to have contact with krsna face to face even while living in this body. They tell of their experineces and it can be analysed with others who currently and in the past describe the same symptoms.

 

It can be argued that this can be a make believe, just like if people came back and said they visted australia and said they have been. We can only verify the claims to the degree we know the details of australia. So in the scriptures there are details of what someones conciousness and behaviour is and then we can co-oberate this with others in the past who have claimed to have achived this and others that claim it now. And to the degree we have traversed the journey and noticed certain things to that degree we can verify the claims of others.

 

 

 

I think at times I have tried to have faith and even pretended to have it, which is shameful, but when I confronted myself with a cruel honesty I knew I was just hoping and so pretending.

 

 

This is usually what happens and happened to me as our initial faith is dishonest and blind we have our own sentimental conception of faith, therefore as thiest prabhu said our faith has to be checked by a profesor expert in this art a guru. He should be able to explain the next stage above you and you be able to understand and progress.

Just like if we know 2+2 then we can understand the next stage which is multiplication, but not yet calculus.

 

So as a crude example a guru can explain to you the difference between the mind, intelligence and conciousness. Once we realise we are the conciousness and not our thoughts (we are the observer of our thoughts the guru recomends practices in which we can actually realise this) then we can start to comprehend the supreme conciousness krsna. Until then our faith is blind towards krsna as we dont even know who we are (the soul\conciousness) let alone krsna.

 

 

In any case I have to rely on my own powers to interpret an experience, to decide whether or not it is spiritual. I think at times I claimed to have had spiritual experience, but how could I tell the difference between something emotional and something spiritual? I don't know what a spiritual experience is. And at other times I think I was deceiving myself because I wanted so much to be a person of faith; it makes life so much clearer.

 

This is the same point about guru. Guru meaning as krsna says in the gita, humbily approach someone who has seen the truth. He can guide you step by step. The question then comes to how do you know who can guide you. As krsna says according to our sincerity krsna gives us a guru to the degree we are insincire we get cheated.

 

However I found that I questioned my siksha gurus intensely and practiced what they said, initially i was sceptical as my mind and intelligence is an overwhelming factor i questioned and eventually got answers according to what I could comprehend. As the mind and intelligence is trained in a certain way through different practices of devotional life we begin to understand more and more subtle concepts which arent based on faith.

 

A crude example is drug addict may not be able to comprehend the pleasure which one derives from giving in charity or being principled, however with guidance he gains understanding then experience of more and more higher and subtler concepts and pleasures. So in the same way our intelligence is corse and it needs to be refined. Not based on sentimental faith but faith based on knowledge.

 

Hope that helps in some way.

 

Gauranaga

[bhaktajan]

There is knowledge which is of the quality of sattva, tama, &/or raja. There is also transcendental knowledge.

But, there is "realized knowledge" ('first hand knowledge') that is acquired through experience—by practical inquiry, exploration, analysis, and research; versus "book-knowledge" Below are some verses that show express this point:

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Bg 3.41 "Therefore, O Arjuna, best of the Bhäratas, in the very beginning curb this great symbol of sin [lust] by regulating the senses, and slay this destroyer of knowledge and self-realization."

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

The Lord advised Arjuna to regulate the senses from the very beginning so that he could curb the greatest sinful enemy, lust, which destroys the urge for self-realization and specific knowledge of the self. Jïäna refers to knowledge of self as distinguished from non-self, or in other words, knowledge that the spirit soul is not the body. Vijïäna refers to specific knowledge of the spirit soul’s constitutional position and his relationship to the Supreme Soul. It is explained thus in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam (2.9.31):

 

 

 

jïänaà parama-guhyaà me

 

 

 

 

yad vijïäna-samanvitam

 

sa-rahasyaà tad-aìgaà ca

gåhäëa gaditaà mayä

 

 

 

 

 

“The knowledge of the self and Supreme Self is very confidential and mysterious, but such knowledge and specific realization can be understood if explained with their various aspects by the Lord Himself.”

SB 1.6.2 Çré Vyäsadeva said: What did you [Närada] do after the departure of the great sages who had instructed you in scientific transcendental knowledge before the beginning of your present birth?

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

Vyäsadeva himself was the disciple of Näradajé, and therefore it was natural to be anxious to hear what Närada did after initiation from the spiritual masters. He wanted to follow in Närada’s footsteps in order to attain to the same perfect stage of life. This desire to inquire from the spiritual master is an essential factor to the progressive path. This process is technically known as sad-dharma-påcchä.

SB 2.9.31 The Personality of Godhead said: Knowledge about Me as described in the scriptures is very confidential, and it has to be realized in conjunction with devotional service. The necessary paraphernalia for that process is being explained by Me. You may take it up carefully.

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

. . . The regulative principles are called vidhi-bhakti, or the devotional service of the Lord, and they can be practiced by a neophyte with his present senses.

Such regulative principles are mainly based on hearing and chanting of the glories of the Lord. . . . made possible in the association of devotees only.

Lord Caitanya therefore recommended five main principles for attaining perfection in the devotional service of the Lord.

The first is association with devotees (hearing);

second is chanting the glories of the Lord;

third, hearing Çrémad-Bhägavatam from the pure devotee;

fourth, residing in a holy place connected with the Lord; and

fifth, worshiping the Deity of the Lord with devotion.

Such rules and regulations are parts of devotional service.

Bg 9.1 Two Sanskrit words: "jïänam"—knowledge; "vijïäna"—realized knowledge

Bg 9.1 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Arjuna, because you are never envious of Me, I shall impart to you this most confidential knowledge and realization, knowing which you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence.

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

As a devotee hears more and more about the Supreme Lord, he becomes enlightened.

This hearing process is recommended in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam: “The messages of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are full of potencies, and these potencies can be realized if topics regarding the Supreme Godhead are discussed amongst devotees.

This cannot be achieved by the association of mental speculators or academic scholars, for it is realized knowledge.”

. . . Discussion of Kåñëa is very potent, and if a fortunate person has such association and tries to assimilate the knowledge, then he will surely make advancement toward spiritual realization.

. . . Simply to understand that a living entity is not material is not sufficient. That may be the beginning of spiritual realization, but one should recognize the difference between activities of the body and the spiritual activities of one who understands that he is not the body.

. . . No one can explain Bhagavad-gétä or give perfect knowledge of Kåñëa if he is envious. One who criticizes the character of Kåñëa without knowing Him is a fool. So such commentaries should be very carefully avoided.

Bg 9.2Purport . . . transcendental knowledge involves understanding the difference between the soul and the body. And the king of all confidential knowledge culminates in devotional service.

. . . That is a confidential part of knowledge: simply knowing that the spirit soul is different from this body and that its nature is immutable, indestructible and eternal.

But that gives no positive information about the soul.

Sometimes people are under the impression that the soul is different from the body and that when the body is finished, or one is liberated from the body, the soul remains in a void and becomes impersonal. But actually that is not the fact.

How can the soul, which is so active within this body, be inactive after being liberated from the body? It is always active.

If it is eternal, then it is eternally active, and its activities in the spiritual kingdom are the most confidential part of spiritual knowledge.

. . . One who can see and is familiar with devotional service will know that they are not material activities. They are all spiritual and devotional, uncontaminated by the material modes of nature.

It is said that the execution of devotional service is so perfect that one can perceive the results directly. This direct result is actually perceived, and we have practical experience that any person who is chanting the holy names of Krsna . . . without offenses feels some transcendental pleasure and very quickly becomes purified of all material contamination.

This is actually seen. Furthermore, if one engages not only in hearing but in trying to broadcast the message of devotional activities as well, or if he engages himself in helping the missionary activities of Kåñëa consciousness, he gradually feels spiritual progress.

This advancement in spiritual life does not depend on any kind of previous education or qualification. The method itself is so pure that by simply engaging in it one becomes pure.

In the Vedänta-sütra (3.2.26) this is also described in the following words: prakäçaç ca karmaëy abhyäsät. “Devotional service is so potent that simply by engaging in the activities of devotional service one becomes enlightened without a doubt.”

……………………………………………………………………………….

ys,

Bhaktajan

[tegramon]

Gita true?

Why should one anyone care about this? Sattisfy your intellect? You dont need to believe in Gita to practice Asana and meditation. You dont need Gita for Traka. You dont need Gita for Samadhi. Asuming that your not a Bhakti Yogi. Let me give you this advice.

I met a guy who was on a quest to challenge all spiritual believe. The main labrat was usually he (I declined, dont like to take part in spiritual revolutions ).

So he changed his Mantra from ... whatever his Ishta Mantra was to "chocolate iceream". He used to repeat it day and night and day and night in Japa. He got the same result as with his Ishta Mantra.

If you want the sum of all Yoga, here it is, at least of what I glimpsed by meditation :

 

- The Divine Ray is burried deep within the mind.

- In order to reach it, we must tear down old habits and reestablish new ones (here Yama and Nyama are of utmost importance)

- In order to tear it down, man must resume to several tricks, since the mind itself is tricky. We know this tricks by the common names of Yoga Sadhana. One of this tricks, is faith expressed in the Gita or any other book.

 

In the end everything is resumed to tear down mental conditioning that was given to from birth. Study Gita and all other scriptures, meditate on slokas, zen koans, sutra's, etc. You will reach the same conclusion. I have no doubt about this whatsoever.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dark Warrior, I am not sure about your claim that there is not a hint of contradiction in the Vedic texts. For example, the Kena Upanishad and the Bhagavad Gita appear to have opposing views on upasana. Of course the commentators can reconcile the differing statements, but there is at least a hint of contradiction there.

 

Then provide me with the so-called contradictions. You should know something about Vedic literature:

 

1) They appear contradictory and nomadic to the mundane materialist.

 

2) They appear lofty to the philosopher.

 

3) They appear crsytal clear to the devotee.

 

The Gita is the essence of the Upanishads. Therfore, Kena Upanishad will defin itely not be contradictory. Read Raghu's post. Since the Upanishads and the Vedas are apaurusheya, everything should be in line with them.

 

The prasthna trayam, ie, Gita, Brahma Sutras and Upanishads are joined to form a seamless whole. This is the basic approach taken by all Vedic Schools.

 

As far as reconciling the contradictions, you seem to believe that it involves making a compromise to adjust errors. Wrong. The purpose of commentary is to show how the philosophy meshes together. There is no contradiction at all. The statement only appears contradictory.

 

Let me give you an example. In the Vedas, at one point it says Shiva was created by Brahma. At another instance, it says Shiva came from Sriman Narayana's forehead. This is explained as follows: Rudra is a post. A jivatma becomes Rudra by penance, and is created by Brahma. Then, Narayana meditates, and from His forehead, comes Lord Sankarshana, an avatar of Vishnu, who induces the jivatma Rudra to destroy and provides him with powers.

 

This 'reconciliation' is correct, because the Vedas confirm it in 3 instances - 1) Shathapatha Brahmana clearly shows that Rudra is a Jivatma, 2) It is mentioned that Rudra got his powers only after realising Vishnu, 3) In Sri Rudram Chamakam, it is indicated that the prayers to Rudra go only to Lord Sankarshana.

 

Thus, the apparent contradictions disappear.

 

The commentators have proven that Bhagavad Gita is the essence of the Upanishads.

 

For instance, Bhakti forms a predominant part of the Svetasvatara Upanishad, as does Nyasa Yoga (Surrender). Unless you have a sharp eye and a keen intellect, you cannot discover these in the Upanishads.

 

As far as your faith is concerned, either you are a theist or atheist. If you are a theist, the Vedic Scripture is clearly the eternal path, and it is dilineated from man-made religions. So choose your path.

 

 

The Upanishads are expositions on the impersonal aspect of Bhagavan.

 

The Upanishads deal with both the personal and impersonal aspects. Otherwise, Vaishnava acharyas would have been unable to substantiate their claims.

 

The Chandogya Upanishad clearly talks about the Lotus Eyes of Brahman. The Purusha Suktam mentions that Sri and Hri (Bhu) Devi are consorts of the Purusha. There are many indications of the Lord's true form in the Vedas.

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, as you say, there are apparent contradictions. I was just querying your earlier statement that there is not even the hint of any contradiction. An apparent contradiction would seem to be a hint at least.

 

The Kena Upanishad states 'tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upasate' whilst the Gita on several occasions urges upasana. Similarly, in the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya says that worship of anything separate from oneself must be based on notions of duality and hence is ruled out. The Gita seems to suggest that worship of a separate Deity is the highest path.

 

Of course these 'apparent contradictions' can be explained from a number of perspectives, which is why Shankara's Gita Bhashya is so different from those of Vaishnavas such as Ramanuja. But I still think 'there is no hint of any contradiction' is an overstatement. The issue of 'apparent contradiction' is one that must be taken very seriously.

[kimfelix]

I would agree that the Shvetashvatara proposes a form of qualified dualism with Shiva as the Supreme Deity. But I think you would be hard pressed to find an emphasis on bhakti there. There is acceptance of separate Deity but not much by way of instruction to engage in acts of worship or to develop a mood of devotion. There is very little about bhakti in the major Upanishads.

[bhaktajan]

 

Gita true?

Why should one anyone care about this? Sattisfy your intellect?

You dont need to believe in Gita to practice Asana and meditation.

. . . You dont need Gita for Samadhi.

. . . If you want the sum of all Yoga, here it is, at least of what I glimpsed by meditation :

 

- The Divine Ray is burried deep within the mind.

- In order to reach it, . . . Yama and Nyama are of utmost importance.

. . . man must resume to several tricks, since the mind itself is tricky.

We know this tricks by the common names of Yoga Sadhana.

One of this tricks, is faith expressed in the Gita or any other book.

 

. . . Study Gita and all other scriptures, meditate on slokas, zen koans, sutra's, etc.

You will reach the same conclusion.

I have no doubt about this whatsoever.

 

tegramon,

Please let me teach you the path to enlightenment:

 

First, I will ask you:

'How do you know who your father is?'

 

Second, I will ask you:

'Can you know the answer by declaring your speculation or by submitting yourself to the authority of the precursor of your lineage?'

 

Third, I will ask you:

'What about all your bad karma and future bad karma? How do you account for your sins and the removal of sins that have brought you to the point of guru-ship?

 

Certainly your level of yogic knowledge began in past lifetimes, yet, evidently, you are destined herein to be simply repeating the same dharmic duties without progressing yet to the path of moksa.

 

Take my advise and read the below excerpt of a Bonefide-real-true Guru. It shall awaken you to the knowledge that "Absolute" truths are attainable and preferable and recommended and sought-out by sincere transcendentalists (since time immemorial).

 

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

 

Sri Isopanisad Mantra 12 Purport:

. . . Many philosophers and great åñis, or mystics, try to distinguish the Absolute from the relative by their tiny brain power. This can only help them reach the negative conception of the Absolute without realizing any positive trace of the Absolute.

Definition of the Absolute by negation is not complete. Such negative definitions lead one to create a concept of one’s own; thus one imagines that the Absolute must be formless and without qualities. Such negative qualities are simply the reversals of relative, material qualities and are therefore also relative.

By conceiving of the Absolute in this way, one can at the utmost reach the impersonal effulgence of God, known as Brahman, but one cannot make further progress to Bhagavän, the Personality of Godhead.

Such mental speculators do not know that the Absolute Personality of Godhead is Kåñëa, that the impersonal Brahman is the glaring effulgence of His transcendental body, or that the Paramätmä, the Supersoul, is His all-pervading plenary representation.

Nor do they know that Kåñëa has His eternal form with its transcendental qualities of eternal bliss and knowledge.

The dependent demigods and great sages imperfectly consider Him to be a powerful demigod, and they consider the Brahman effulgence to be the Absolute Truth.

But the devotees of Kåñëa, by dint of their surrendering unto Him and their unalloyed devotion, can know that He is the Absolute Person and that everything emanates from Him. Such devotees continuously render loving service unto Kåñëa, the fountainhead of everything.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

 

doing what I can to spread the amrita,

Bhaktajan

[tegramon]

 

tegramon,

Please let me teach you the path to enlightenment:

 

First, I will ask you:

'How do you know who your father is?'

 

Second, I will ask you:

'Can you know the answer by declaring your speculation or by submitting yourself to the authority of the precursor of your lineage?'

 

Third, I will ask you:

'What about all your bad karma and future bad karma? How do you account for your sins and the removal of sins that have brought you to the point of guru-ship?

 

Certainly your level of yogic knowledge began in past lifetimes, yet, evidently, you are destined herein to be simply repeating the same dharmic duties without progressing yet to the path of moksa.

 

Take my advise and read the below excerpt of a Bonefide-real-true Guru. It shall awaken you to the knowledge that "Absolute" truths are attainable and preferable and recommended and sought-out by sincere transcendentalists (since time immemorial).

 

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

 

Sri Isopanisad Mantra 12 Purport:

. . . Many philosophers and great åñis, or mystics, try to distinguish the Absolute from the relative by their tiny brain power. This can only help them reach the negative conception of the Absolute without realizing any positive trace of the Absolute.

Definition of the Absolute by negation is not complete. Such negative definitions lead one to create a concept of one’s own; thus one imagines that the Absolute must be formless and without qualities. Such negative qualities are simply the reversals of relative, material qualities and are therefore also relative.

By conceiving of the Absolute in this way, one can at the utmost reach the impersonal effulgence of God, known as Brahman, but one cannot make further progress to Bhagavän, the Personality of Godhead.

Such mental speculators do not know that the Absolute Personality of Godhead is Kåñëa, that the impersonal Brahman is the glaring effulgence of His transcendental body, or that the Paramätmä, the Supersoul, is His all-pervading plenary representation.

Nor do they know that Kåñëa has His eternal form with its transcendental qualities of eternal bliss and knowledge.

The dependent demigods and great sages imperfectly consider Him to be a powerful demigod, and they consider the Brahman effulgence to be the Absolute Truth.

But the devotees of Kåñëa, by dint of their surrendering unto Him and their unalloyed devotion, can know that He is the Absolute Person and that everything emanates from Him. Such devotees continuously render loving service unto Kåñëa, the fountainhead of everything.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

 

doing what I can to spread the amrita,

Bhaktajan

 

Greetings Bhaktajan

 

Thank you for your response. I am always open to discussions and this seems an interesting start. Now to try to answer your questions :

 

1) Only by speculation and by mere glimpses during meditation where I lost all sense of individuality. But those moments were very rare and lasted seconds.

 

2) Well, it's a mix of two. I can answer mostly by speculation since I do not have a real live guru although I am seeking. Though I must admit that I have great admiration for Swami Sivananda and read his works all the time.

 

3) I never claimed I was a Guru. Nor I will claim since obviously I am not. I only shared what glimpses I had. I do not know my past lifes, except intellectually by observing me and taking a hint of where I gone wrong. I guess devotion and faith was/is not one of my strong points.

 

I am bound to repeat my dharmic duties without achieving moksha? I am not a master of english, but I seek moksha, the end of all sorrows, freedom. I am seeking it and gradually working towards it. Slowly and without a Guru.

 

Your below message was extremly uplifting, and it seems to me that the person who wrote it might be a Guru. I do not understood one thing though, what is the difference between "Kanea" and Brahman? And what is Kanea?

 

Tegramon

[raghu]

 

I would agree that the Shvetashvatara proposes a form of qualified dualism with Shiva as the Supreme Deity. But I think you would be hard pressed to find an emphasis on bhakti there. There is acceptance of separate Deity but not much by way of instruction to engage in acts of worship or to develop a mood of devotion. There is very little about bhakti in the major Upanishads.

 

When the Upanishad distinguishes the jivatman from Brahman, which you have accepted that the Sv Up does, then bhakti is an implicit conclusion.

 

As far as your comments that (1) the Svetashvatara proposes a form of "qualified" dualism with (2) Shiva as the supreme deity, I would be very interested to know why you think that. One would be very hard pressed to pass the Sv Up as a Shaivite text given the numerous context clues that point to Sri Hari as the object of worship.