Guest guest Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 Hare Krishna, Is Mahabharata a myth ? Dear Srila Gurudeva, Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Some of my Atheistic friends have no respect for Lord Krishna. They say that Mahabharata is a myth. Lord Krishna is a imaginary character. They argue that Mahabharata war might have actually taken place and Lord Krishna might have been a smart person. But He is not God. After listening to such talk, my mind starts speculating. My faith is weak. Please help me to believe and develop greater faith. Your humble servant, Lavanya Mahbharata is real and Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead My Dear Lavanya, Please accept my blessings. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Your friends are brainwashed by the cult known as the materialistic society. You should not follow their instructions. It is better that you give up the association of such ill-fated persons who are not your friends. They are actually your enemies. Make strong friendships with Krishna’s devotees. This all purifying association will nicely satisfy your need for friendship. Atheists can argue that Mahabharata is myth. Anyone can say that anything is a myth. There was one man whose was being very much tortured by others. Wherever he went people were saying "Ghost, ghost, a ghost has come." Pretty soon he started believing that he was ghost even though he was not. You therefore must avoid the association of those foolish Atheists who decry the existence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You can tell them that there is no such thing as something coming out of nothing. Everything comes from something. If we trace back back to that original something from which everything has come we will arrive at Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Only a fool would deny that there is an origin for all the exists. Hoping this meets you in good health and in a cheerful mood, Your eternal well-wisher, Sankarshan Das Adhikari ------------------------------- Spirituality and Verbal Expression Dear Srila Gurudeva,Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.1. Is there a legitimate way for a devotee to express pain or suffering? Is the existence of pain perhaps considered to be simply proof of ignorance and pollution, and the expression of it merely and exercise in, and reinforcement of, ignorance?2. I once heard (from a friend, citing some kind of spiritual philosophy) something to the effect that verbal expression of experiences (these being of a positive type, or what one feels to be spiritual growth experiences) renders them ineffective, or spoils their potential. Does this idea sound familiar to you? Is there any legitimacy to it? I have felt on many occasions that I do better just to keep quiet, and avoid any attempts at verbalizing experiences or perceptions that mean a lot to me on a deep level. 3. We are all taught to express ourselves verbally according to some kind of model - the patterns of our mundane languages, expectations of different types of activity or social contexts, etc. The manner in which we speak arguably fosters or supports certain mindsets (for example, the "I"-referent mentality - "I am", "I do", "this is mine" - to name the most basic one). Is it worthwhile for a devotee to reconsider his use of language and work to alter it, as a sort of behavior modification, to encourage the eradication of attitudes such as self-centeredness, pride, etc? Or, I suppose my most basic question is really this: if we speak or in a certain way that can be viewed as incompatible with spiritual principle (use of the pronoun "I", or academically styled writing that likely comes off as lacking humility), is this to be taken as a sign of sinful attitude? Would advancement in devotional service automatically reverse such forms of expression, so that the speaker would be recognized as degraded of exalted by his mode of speech?Once again, thank you for your willingness to address these cold and lowly questions.Your servant,Labangalatika devi dasi The Perfection of Verbalization My Dear Labangalatika devi dasi,Please accept my blessings. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.Here are the answers to your questions : Pain is a legitimate reality. It is not false. It is indeed happening. A devotee feels pain in his heart to see the sufferings of others and dedicates his entire life to free them from their pain. A devotee is described in Sanskrit as, "Para-duhkha-duhkhi" or one who is pained to see the suffering of others.Regarding his own pain, which comes from a lack of Krishna consciousness, the devotee prays as follows :”ha ha prabhu nityananda, premananda sukhi krpabalokana koro ami boro duhkhi”("My dear Lord Nityananda, You are always joyful in spiritual bliss. Since You always appear very happy, I have come to You because I am most unhappy. If You kindly put Your glance over me, then I may also become happy.")In other words the devotee begs Lord Nityananda to relieve him from his distressful situation in material consciousness. In this way by always taking shelter of Lord Nityananda the devotee is able to completely become free from suffering.2. This concept is held by the impersonalists. They say that he who speaks does not know and that he who knows does not speak. But this philosophy cancels itself out. If he who speaks does not know then whoever said that obviously does not know, and his philosophy is therefore invalid. In Krishna consciousness we are equipped and empowered with a complete language to describe and articulate in detail what is the wonderful realm of spiritual enlightenment.We can write volumes and volumes of books on this ultimate subject matter. The impersonalists cannot verbalize their realization because their realization is only an imagination. It is not tangible. The Srimad Bhagavatam describes it as "vimukti-maninas", liberation in the mind only.3. Yes, a devotee does learn to speak of "I" in terms of the real ego instead of the false ego. Instead of saying "I am an American," he says "I am the eternal servant of Krishna." In this way he uses the "I" in relation to the spirit soul instead of the material body. Sometimes for the sake of preaching to others he may use "I" in the relative sense just to relate to their level of understanding for the purpose of gradually elevating them. But when it comes to the matter of philosophy he will never use "I" in relationship to the body because the body is clearly not the self. It is merely a garment being worn by the self.Your questions are very nice. They are not cold and they are not lowly.Hoping this meets you in good health and in a cheerful mood, Your eternal well-wisher,Sankarshan Das Adhikari Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.