Srimad Bhagavatam is Spotless

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

>But why would an acarya of status of

>Madhva would lie ?

 

Madhva may have made a Trip to Badarikashrama. But did he himself say that he met Vyasa or was it the biographer ? Perhaps he had a vision of Vyasa, which was seen only by him.

 

And also about him disappearing and being in Badari now, serving Vyasa in person is definitely not what he himself could have written. Clearly someone wrote this after the time of Madhva. And the question is how did the author come to know about that? I would like your thoughts on that.

 

Shankara is also supposed to have 'disappeared'. I don't believe such things, because they seem more false than true. If someone wants to accept that as true, then they are welcome to. It is a matter of personal choice. As a person who belongs to a certain system, your sentiments wil stand in the way of questioning any of your beliefs. However I am not into any system, so I have no sentiments to stop me from doubting anything.

 

it is funny considering that all these Acharyas were born like regular people, but 'disappeared' at the end.

 

You said no one ever questioned Madhva when he said he met Vyasa, No one questioned Shankara either when he said, Vyasa met him and doubled his life span. People have always been more interested in faithfully writng down whatever is said and distributing it to others, instead of sitting back and thinking about it or questioning it. When Jesus said "I and the father are one", instead of asking him what that meant, his disciples were more interested in spreading the gospel. Now no one knows what that means, and each one has his own interpretation. So the point that no one questioned Madhva or Shankara is not surprising at all.

 

When the disciples want to promote and establish a new system, they have to do all such things. Like Jesus came back from the dead, Shankara disappeared, Madhva disappeared, Chaitanya disappeared and so on. That gives the extra impetus to convince people. They had a product to market, which they had to push against all the exisiting products and they had to use every trick in the bag. This is my view, and if your sentiments make you feel that this is outrageous, I am sorry.

 

All said and done, statistically there is a 50% chance that the stories that we read are false. There may have been no Krishna at all. it does seem odd that a person of such glory and one who fought with foreigners, etc is not known to any of the other civilisations. Some poet with a great imagination may have come with this character. But that sounds terrifying to the devotees, and they will quickly turn away from such a possibility. Having invested so much of time and thought to Krishna, this seems unimaginable. So they favor the other possibility that it must all be true. A question of faith.

 

btw you didn't answer my questions on Jesus Christ.

 

Cheers

[sumeet]

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

First I would like to mention about Jesus Questions you put to me.

 

" Do you believe that Jesus was the only true son of God, as the Bible says ?"

>>> Understanding that God is unlimited God must possess unlimited number of Sons.

So I do beleive that Jesus is one of them.

 

Do you believe that he walked on water

>>> Yes there is a mystic siddhi mentioned in the Bhagavat which talks about the Mystic yogi becoming lighter than the lightest. Jesus being a mystic could have done that.

 

and came back from the dead ?

>>> Yes. God the Lord of death and life could have done that if he so willed.

 

About Krishna:

Dear whether other civilizations knew it or not depends on the connectivity between them. See when the europeans started to visit India then these people came in contact with the indian culture and belief system. Then only they came to know about Lord Krishna and things related. You must be knowing from history that only after the period of Renaisance the when the Europeans dared to undergo Voyages then only they discovered other continents and and soon the world came to know each other and their belief. About Krishna being a poet's imagination. Let me say what proof you had of Napoleon's or for that any other medivial famous personality existence ?

Today this topic is being discussed between me and you. I know that you exist and I exist. And you record your existence in an biography. Suppose men 500 years from now got the book written by you. A person like you, revealed to them by the book: There is two possibilities. Either book is wrong or that book is right ie is either you existed or you didn't exist. Either of the two answers that the people 500 years from now can accept to be true. Look from this perspective. That it is an irrefutable fact in space and time that a person by your name existed around 2000 AD. It is a fact. You know that you are there. It is not that your existence is not a fact. That would be silly to think of. So the reality is that you exist in 2000 AD. Now make yourself a man of 2500 AD. And just imagine yourself to be the person who found your biography. Now for Him if he uses statistical laws, then they won't give accurate picture of the reality. Because what they say that you existed or not existed. Now see for that man if He applies the statistics or probability then either he will deny your existence or he will accept it. But in the year 2000 AD you exist. This is reality. This is the truth. It's not fantasy.

So the reality is that you existed. Despite the fact you existed the statistical laws when applied in the year 2500 AD for year 2000 AD allow the possibility that you never existed. But this is absolutely wrong. You exist in year 2000 AD. Therefore they fail to give the real picture of the reality in 2000 AD. Hence they are imperfect and wrong. They are misguiding also. They can never give a picture of reality. So I cannot accept them. So now in such a circumstance that future person should either accept the fact that you existed in the year 2000 AD or He should become totally indiffirent to that. But if under the impression of statistics He denies your existence then, you can see yourselve whether he is wroong or right. So it is not at all intelligent to deny someone's existence who existed in the previous times.

 

One more thing that your sayings didn't appear outrageous to me.

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

About Jesus,

I don't believe Jesus walked on water, or that he came back alive. It is a question of personal belief.

 

----

But if under the impression of statistics He denies your existence then, you can see yourself whether he is wrong or right. So it is not at all intelligent to deny someone's existence who existed in the previous times.

----

 

If a person 500 years from now, wants to determine our existence, then it is speculation and there remains a fifty Percent chance that we were not in existence [in the absence of concrete evidence]. Likewise there is always this chance that there was no Krishna at all.

 

Krishna as you know is not part of history as we know today. There is no proof of existence of a person named Krishna during 3200 bc in India, according to archaeology and Indology. Even if they did uncover proof that a person like Krishna was around during that time, they cannot prove that he lifted mountains, or had a Sudarshana Chakra with him. I hope you see the role of faith and belief here.

 

----

You must be knowing from history that only after the period of Renaissance the when the Europeans dared to undergo Voyages then only they discovered other continents and and soon the world came to know each other and their belief.

-----

 

Not really. Alexander invaded India during the BC ages. India was very much known to Europeans by then. The Yavanas mentioned in the Puranas are supposed to be Greek kings. The Bhagavatam talks about Mlechcha [Foreign]Kings, and a Mlechcha king named Kalayavana who fights Krishna. Krishna is supposed to have come down for all of mankind, not just for the people of North India. The Bhagavatam also says that Krishna's glory had spread to all the 3 worlds, during his lifetime. (??) There is absolutely no evidence of that.

 

If a person who apparently walked on water can be so revered by the people, then how much so for a person who lifted mountains ? And he came 3000+ years before Jesus. Imagine how much his glory must have spread in all these years.

 

But you will not find a single line about him anywhere, in any historical record.

 

So we have these options,

 

1. The date that we have about Krishna [5000 bc] is wrong. He must have lived earlier, before the other civilizations began.

 

2. The date is correct, but he was not as famous and extra-ordinary as these books are making him out to be. They are exaggerating.

 

3. There was no Krishna at all.

 

Coming to exaggerations, you would be surprised at how the Authors can create a whole lot out of nothing. And over time, it takes hold and gathers a lot of momentum. Radha is a good example. Some sects developed the idea of worshipping Radha, and since then there has been so much literature on Radha and her divine nature. She was elevated from the postion of a Gopika to the mother of the Universe. The same may have happened to Krishna more earlier. He may have been a king with exceptional charm like Chaitanya, and over the years people may have added color to his character and glorified it.

 

Another example is the American impression about India. You would be surprised to know how many Americans still think that India is full of Villages with starving people, and Snake-Charmers everywhere. That is the record they have.

 

The same with Jesus, Buddha, Shankara, Madhva and Chaitanya. I don't believe half the stories that we hear about them. We are not willing to believe the miracles of a Sathya Sai Baba who is living in our time. For all we know, 500 years later, he may be revered as an Acharya who performed miracles, who was an Avatar and who finally 'disappeared'.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

A Typo

 

----

1. The date that we have about Krishna [5000 bc] is wrong. He must have lived earlier, before the other civilizations began.

------

 

The date is 3000 bc.

 

I would also like to add that, according to Archaeological findings, the average lifetime of man during those periods was 30-35 years. It has gradully increased over the last few years, due to imroved medical facilities and better living standards. That is another point that contradicts the Puranas and the Bible that people used to live longer before. [eg: Krishna is supposed to have lived for 125 years]

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

 

Yes, Science has been and still is being proved wrong.

 

But all the religious books that we have, may also be false. They may all be cooked up [50% probabilty]. But they can never be proven right or wrong. Because it is entirely a matter of faith.

 

Cheers

[ggohil]



Hari Bole

 

Yes, I agree.

 

That is why, in this context, one cannot say, I have faith because the literature is consistent with Science.

 

There is always a possibility that the Vedic Literature is man made. Though no one, with any degree of accuracy, can say how much of it is man made.

 

However, faith is really above all this.

 

A person who has faith needs no proof, while, A person without faith, no amount of proof will suffice.

 

[animesh]

Science is proved wrong again and again because scientists are ready to discuss and accept earlier theories wrong if they do not satisfy experimental results. They are always doing new and new experiments to test theories and to bring about new theories if needed. Things written in religious books are not being proved wrong simply because almost no scholar on these books is ready to discuss these and accept them as false even if there are some contradictory statements in them.

Please note, I am not trying to say that these books must be wrong. It is highly possible that they are all correct and ,as Sri Sumeet explained using an analogy, firm evidence might have disappeared over span of time. All I am trying to say that just because something is not questioned does not make it absolute.

 

Irrespective of whether something is right or wrong, I prefer the method of discussion and experimentation in which we discuss strengths and weaknesses of theories and do experiments to verify them. Because without these we may not be able to know that something is wrong even if it is really wrong. Now you may ask that when science uses so much of discussion and experiments, then why are scientific theories being proved wrong. Please note that when a theory is accepted after lots of tests then even if it is proved wrong it is not completely overthrown. As an example, even though Newton's laws have been proved wrong by Einstein's relativity, these laws have not been and can not be completely overthrown. They are still very useful and will continue to be useful.

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Just a thought

 

Science has been proven wrong many times. Science is evolving knowledge.

 

Sri Krsna's teachings is considered to be absolute.

 

I do not know if one can rely on science to prove The Absolute.

 

I understand you even doubt the authenticity of Gita or if Krsna ever exited. : )

[ggohil]

Hari Bole

 

I think Vedas are questioned.

 

I certainly question it. I also acknowledge that Vedas may be completely man made.

 

However, I think Vedas in essence, unlike experiments of science, is not about history or proof .

As I said, it is all about faith.

 

Personally, by studying BG, I, among many things, found happiness and peace within myself, and henceforth the “faith”. The validity of the of Vedas is really secondary importance to me.

 

Therefore, in this context Science and Vedas are incomparable. One is based on material proof and the other has nothing to with material proof.

 

Science is ever changing and faith is not suppose to be.

 

Just a little note on Einstein’s theory.

 

Einstein’s theory completely disqualified Newton’s all three laws of motion. The only reason Newton’s laws of motions are still considered because his equations utilizes velocities of small magnitudes hence the errors are negligible.

[animesh]

Dear Girish ji,

Why is it that at speeds very small compared to c(speed of light in free space i.e. 299792458 m/s), the errors in applying Newton's laws are negligible? When I said, they have not been completely overthrown, all I meant was that they are still very much applicable? Why is it so? This is because Newton's laws were accepted because they could very well explain observations and not simply because Newton said it. This is one merit in accepting theories after lots of tests. That even if in future a more accurate theory is found, the earlier theory will still be applicable although not in as many diverse cases it it was believed to be applicable before.

 

Now let us talk about faith. I agree that faith needs no proof. If I have faith that something is true, then I will consider it to be true even if no firm evidence is found. But that does not mean that that thing must be true. It is just that I believe it to be true. I do not find anything wrong in faith. Life can not be worth living without faith. If believing in what our scriptures say increases the love harmony between people, then there is nothing wrong in believing them even if they are man made.

 

But I mentioned about science only because I have found many people making fun of science because in science theories are always proved wrong.

[ggohil]



Sri Animeshji,

 

Yes, I agree with you.

 

But the point I was making is that as new theories are developed the face of science keeps changing, it is not absolute. On the other hand the knowledge of Vedas is considered to be absolute.

 

I a man of Science, my back ground is in Mechanical Engineering, therefore I appreciatec development in Science, especially about Newton and Einstein.

 

(Newton was my idol in the school days )

[sumeet]

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Likewise there is always this chance that there was no Krishna at all."

>>> Do you mean to say that Krishna could be imaginary character. NO my dear friend you are grossly mistaken. If you take to devotional service or the process of self realization you can find Him. As such the proof of Krishna's existence is the love so many people have had from Him and had for Him. If you claim that Krishna could noty have existed at all then tell me that so many people for past thousands of years have devoted their life to serving and loving a imaginary character. This statement doesn't appears correct. Since no one can serve and love a character created in some one's imagination. No one can actually devote one's life and love to something that is imaginable that is not real. If someone comes up with a imaginary character, would you think that the entire world would start worshipping Him. Some one who is not existing will become reverential for the entire billions of people who exist now. With what rational logic did you conclude that poeple have spend their life devoting to some illusory character and an object of their fanatasies. No actual devotee of Lord Krishna will actually say like that. It's not that I'm critisizing you or annoyed with you. Rather I'm surpirsed that despite you being a devotee of Lord Narayana hasn't he ever responded to your loving sentiments for Him. Narayana whose Vow according to BG is that He incarnates to protect His devotees will not even care to respond to the love of His devotees. This looks very insensible. The very love people cherished for Lord Krishna and Lord Rama and Lord Narayan is enough a proof of their existence. It is insane to even think that human beings who are top most intelligent species will devote their minds and thoughts in love to an illusory character who has no substance, who only exists in their dreams and imagination or fantasies. I want to know with what logic did you say:

" Some poet with a great imagination may have come with this character. But that sounds terrifying to the devotees, "

>>> It doesn't sound terrifying but sounds ridiculous to the devotees and especially to those who have realized His presence partially or completely.

 

" and they will quickly turn away from such a possibility."

>>> Therefore they will turn away. Because it appears nonsense to them.

 

"Having invested so much of time and thought to Krishna, this seems unimaginable."

>>> Krishna responds to all of his devotess love call. He is present in their heart and guides them to the proper destiny.(BG 10-9-11) His presence is felt within their heart. To tell you the truth God is present in everyone's heart and all those who rendered devotional service know it. They have realized his presence. They have not dreamt about him.

 

"So they favor the other possibility that it must all be true. A question of faith. "

>>> They never favor any other possibility.

When we love Krishna he reciporcates. At this point I would humbly request people like SRi Jaysriradhey, Sri Jn Das , Sri Goghil and Sri Animesh and Sri Viji and others to give their views about this. Tell me that God does or doesn't responds to our love for him. What more than that can be proof of his presence ? With the feelings of one’s heart one can confirm that God exists. God is on the deepest side of our existence. In the deepest plane of our consciousness, in the core of our heart, His existence can be felt. Indeed it is a profoundly personal experience, not something for the sightseers of the mundane world. "Show me God!" and He simply dances before your eyes. It is not like that. Many things are required if we want to see God. Dear It is not unreasonable. One should first qualify Himself and then desire. "First deserve, then desire." Is there any valuable thing in this world that one can have simply upon demand? Simply saying, "I want to be rich!" Does one becomes rich? No, many things are required before that. Simply saying, "I want to be a doctor!" Does one become a doctor immediately? No. Then why should one think that the demand to see God should be met immediately? First, deserve, then desire. It is such. No human being can devote his love to some one fanciful or imaginary being. Yes a Person can continue to love some one who has been in the past. But still that person has to be existing in the past. Have you seen any sane man who has loved someone who neither has existence in past or present. Yet people all over the world continue to love God. Dear GOD RESPONDS. This proves beyond doubt that HIS existence is eternal.

 

But still I would like to know what did you actually mean by that. Even when God's existence can be proved in that way and you know Krishna is God himself then what do you actually mean by that statement. Do you mean that Kirshna is not God ?

 

That proposal that Krishna is some poet's imagination doesn't appears to be sensible because just see that suppose today I write peoms describing illusory character, who is great and very glorious nonetheless he is not real either in the past or present. But still he is object of my imagination. Then according to what you say: many people all around the world existing in my time would become so much charmed by this imaginary charater that all of them would simply devote their toime and loving sentiments to him. And this in form of a tradition they are going to pass on to the furture generations. Does this seems plausible. That many people get attached to my imagination and rather than calling my self an idiot starts worshipping the object of my imagination as God Himself. What made you think that Lord Krishna could be some poet's imagination which the whole millions of hindus would continue to accpet as the aim of their life.

 

 

Krishna as you know is not part of history as we know today.

 

>>> The history today as we know is mostly western dominated. You must be knowing what Max Muller and other western scholars did to Vedic scriptures by misguiding us about our own heritage & calling vedic scriptures myth etc....

 

There is no proof of existence of a person named Krishna during 3200 bc in India, according to archaeology and Indology.

>>> This I have already shown you. And furthermore Krishna can be seen even now only if one deserves that. This is the verdict of BG & Vedic literature.

 

" Even if they did uncover proof that a person like Krishna was around during that time, they cannot prove that he lifted mountains,"

>>> If at all you through personal devotion have realized him as God himself then you can very well reason out if HE can do that or not.

 

" or had a Sudarshana Chakra with him. I hope you see the role of faith and belief here. "

>>> If you have read BG then you would have definately come accross the verse 11.54 where he says that by devotional service you can see him as he is. So develop devotional service unto him and then desire to see him and his glory. He should Arjuna His four handed form so he shall show you also. Also what proof can you give to me that Napoleon is the person as photographs shows him?

 

"Not really. Alexander invaded India during the BC ages. India was very much known to Europeans by then. The Yavanas mentioned in the Puranas are supposed to be Greek kings. The Bhagavatam talks about Mlechcha [Foreign]Kings, and a Mlechcha king named Kalayavana who fights Krishna."

>>> Yes. But Bhagavatam describes them as sinful lot of people. Certainly such people will care nothing to preserve the glory of God.

 

" The Bhagavatam also says, during his lifetime. (??) There is absolutely no evidence of that.If a person who apparently walked on water can be so revered by the people, then how much so for a person who lifted mountains ? And he came 3000+ years before Jesus. Imagine how much his glory must have spread in all these years. "

>>> You know the first time europeans came in contact with BG was in 1785. BG was first translated into English in 1785 by Charles Wilkins. It was translated into Latin in 1823 by Schlegel, into German in 1826 by Von Humbolt, into French in 1846 by Lassens and into Greek in 1848 by Galanos. This doesn't means that BG came into existence in 17 or the 18 century. See they[europeans] didn't have knowledge of BG until very recently what knowledge they can have about Lord Krishna when Lord Krishna Himself was the speaker of BG.

 

"But you will not find a single line about him anywhere, in any historical record. "

>>> So now you can figure out that Europeans and others not recording Lord Krishna doesn't means that Lord Krishna was not there when BG itself was first introduced in Europe in the 18 th century.

 

So we have these options,

 

1. The date that we have about Krishna [5000 bc] is wrong. He must have lived earlier, before the other civilizations began.

>>> So as argued above Krishna's presence or absence has nothing to do with others knowing about him and keeping their record.

 

2. The date is correct, but he was not as famous and extra-ordinary as these books are making him out to be. They are exaggerating.

>>> If at all by means of spiritual advancement you have realized or seen Krishna in any of His form- Impersonal Brahman or all pervading Parmatma or Bhagavan His Personal feature then it wouldn't take time to know His glory. In short Krishna's glory is eternally existing. It's only we who needs to know it through proper channels. Only His devotees can know something about Him. But kindly understand that I'm not saying that you are not his devotee.

 

3. There was no Krishna at all.

>>> This option is totally incorrect because Krishna Himself says in BG 4.34 that Krishna can be seen by grace of those who have already seen Him.

 

" Coming to exaggerations, you would be surprised at how the Authors can create a whole lot out of nothing. And over time, it takes hold and gathers a lot of momentum. Radha is a good example. Some sects developed the idea of worshipping Radha, and since then there has been so much literature on Radha and her divine nature. She was elevated from the postion of a Gopika to the mother of the Universe."

>>> About this I have to ask the Gaudiya authorities. Actually the devotion to Lord Krishna in Madhurya Rasa or conjugal love has spread only recently with the advent of Lord Chaitanya. Because Lord Krishna never openly bestowed this Rasa to everyone neither did Lord Ramacandra did so we have no literature on that. Instead the dasya Rasa or sakhya rasa which was bestowed by Lord Krishna and Lord Rama we have literature about that. Become servant of God which is the greneral theme of all sacred literatures and Bhagavad Gita informing us about Krishna's friendship. But it was Lord Chaitanya who only bestowed that rasa which is only enjoyed by Laxmi devi the goddess of fortune. And He so openly did that. Krishna demanded when you surrender only then I shall according to your surrender reciprocate. But Lord chaitanya asked his disciples to go home to home and preach them about Lord Krishna's love. Without considering who is who, he distributed Love of Lord freely. Hence one of the Goswami prayed to Him calling the most munificient incarnation of God. Certainly only God Himself can bestow the kind of love that Lord chaitanya bestowed especially the one which only Laxmi devi can possess only. Radhika is the topmost amongst Gopis who knew the art of Madhurya rasa. When this rasa is being preached openly then naturally she becomes the object of utmost reverence for her having Lord Krishna captured in Her love, the way he reciprocates only with goddess of fortune. And towards the end it is very offensive to even think that glory of God is an exxageration of Human mind.

 

" The same may have happened to Krishna more earlier. He may have been a king with exceptional charm like Chaitanya, and over the years people may have added color to his character and glorified it. "

>>> No devotee of Lord Narayana who has actually realized Lord would say that because he very well understands Lord by the process of devotional service. If you are at all self realized or progressing on the path of self realization then you can yourself percieve the glory of Narayana or Vishnu or Krishna or Rama with the eye of Devotion.

 

" Another example is the American impression about India. You would be surprised to know how many Americans still think that India is full of Villages with starving people, and Snake-Charmers everywhere. That is the record they have."

>>> I'm studying in US only so I know that. Once a person[American boy] approached me and said that in India do you people go to school on elephants or by walking covering long distances. I said yes we do that but once we need to come to US we board the airplanes like Lufthansa, KLM and others. I intended that by hearing this apparently contradictory answer he would understand that things are different in India. Although I don't know what conclusion he reached.

 

Also although the great acaryas also cast off this material body but as a matter of respect it is said that they disappear rather than saying they died. So the word disappear doesn't means that their body disappeared but rather implies that they have disappeared from the mortal scene and gained immortality. And I see no problem with the use of the word in this way.

 

" The same with Jesus, Buddha, Shankara, Madhva and Chaitanya.I don't believe half the stories that we hear about them. "

>>> But as I told you that Madhva's meeting with Vyasa deva has not been questioned. Also as you pointed out that Shankara's has not been questioned and actually to tell you that also is accepted as truth. You will not find that although in India Dvaitins and Advaitins together fight on the Vedic conclusions but they never fight on the claim that either Madhva or Shankara met Vyasdeva. Certainly both were great intellects of extraordinary charm and except them there have been many people so greatly revered as authorities on Vedanta; They also accepted it. Jesus might not have been questioned by his disciples but in India if things happen say just like a commentary on Vedanta Sutra then immediately that needs to be defended against other authorities and bonafide schools of Vedanta. So if something like meeting Vyasdeva happens and if it is doubtful then there is no reason the different schools and different authorities question them. These schools of India who know to argue agianst each other on small differences and other large differences would let something of that importance like meeting with Vyasa deva go untouched. No dear friend. Dvaita and Advaita are in complete opposition to each other and yet they don't argue over this point. No vedic authrotity like Ramanuja, Lord Chaitanya, and others argued or opposed it. Rather all reverentially accepted this. Both Sankra and Madhva were people of extraordinary charm and many people find the light of vedanta in their ways. They have been great influence in the Vedic culture in our times. If they have met Vyas deva then it is not a topic of disbelief. People of their calibers can do that. And only of their caliber can do that. Also note that Ramanuja or Lord Chaitanya and others never claimed to have met Vyas deva. Yet they very reverently accepted the fact that Madhva and shankara met Vyas deva.

It's not a custom or ritual in Indian tradition that every great authority claims to have met Vyas Deva. Only two people met Him and while there have been many other great authorities on Vedanta and they never claimed like that. I repeat that they accepted that both shankara and Madhva met Vyasa although they were authorities themselves. This matter as such is not at all debatable. Everyone[all five schools of Vedanta & their followers] accepts it as such.

 

" We are not willing to believe the miracles of a Sathya Sai Baba who is living in our time. For all we know, 500 years later, he may be revered as an Acharya who performed miracles, who was an Avatar and who finally 'disappeared'."

>>> Sathya Sai baba's miracle is doubtful in itself. He is as such surrounded by controversy and many such things. He doesn't at all come into category of Madhva and others. And until any sane man is there on earth He[sai baba] won't be pictured as you have proposed.

 

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Questioning the Vedas, studying the Vedas, discussing the Vedas, proving the Vedas wrong, is

one thing. But living the life of devotion is another.

 

(In the words of one Rishi)

 

Seek not Krsna in the “books” or in the “universe” for you will not find him.

Rather, live with endless love for Krsna, and let Krsna seek you out.

 

Sumeetji I will answer you request later.

[sumeet]

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

My dear friend Sri Ghoghil I agree with you when you say:

" Seek not Krsna in the “books” or in the “universe” for you will not find him.

Rather, live with endless love for Krsna, and let Krsna seek you out. "

Yes my dear friend. Love Him so much that He Himself becomes pleases and then He will try to accompany us through out our life. Love Him so much that He is impelled to seek you out. Don't forget BG 6.31.

 

Dear friend the entire essence or goal of Vedic knowledge is that Supreme Lord is ONE.

We all is His servants. To live with Him associating with Him rendering loving devotional service unto Him is the goal of life." Dear friend studying Vedas gives us peace which is unending. Whenever a person is in difficulty a person seeks shelter in scriptures and he finds that peace which his dear ones cannot even give. Also the joy derived from studying scriptures with a devotional heart brings a enjoyment that is different from the pleasures of material world. This enjoyment or rather trasncendental bliss knows no end. It keeps on increasing. Also each time you go across the scriptures you find something new. You will never get bored reading Bhagavad Gita or any other Vedic literature. It remains as fresh as it ever was. Furthermore you can chant the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra throughout your life with out getting bored. Your joy will increase manifold. But you cannot keep on chanting some material name throughout you life. But Man made things like television or Videos don't provide such an entertainment. Dear here I would like to cite a verse: In 10.18 Arjuna admits that hearing to Krishna's glories, there is no satiation. His desire only increases manifold. So how can the Vedic literature be man made. Also there is a big difference in Mundane sound and transcendental sound vibration. Just try to understand:

When you are feeling thirsty then you may shout water water but your thirst will not disappear. But on the other hand if you are troubled and you chant Krishna's holy name or God's name you immediately get peace and happiness. God is full of bliss and peace so when you chant his name you get the result immediately. Dear a transcendental sound vibration embodies what it represents. Like the word Krishna embodies the Person Krishna or God who is full of bliss and abode of peace. On the other hand the material sound like water is different from the substance water. So chanting water, water we cannot quench our thirst yet chanting Krishna's holy name we can get all benefit we can have from Krishna's personal presence. By chanting when one's heart gets pured then with the seed of devotional service is sowed in the heart and thereafter in proportion to ones purification and devotion one can see the Transcendental Pesonality of Godhead either as Ramacandra, Narayana or Krishna. Vedanta is compiled by Lord, as indicated by BG 15.15 so if we are to keep a mentality opposing Vedic scriptures and disbieliving them then we cannot develop love for Krishna. Dear this has been beautifully explained by Lord Himself:

BG 4.40 & BG 16.23 where Lord explains the result of following Vedic scriptures with proper understanding and also the result of whimsically acting under the impulse of one's own desire transgressing the scriptures. Also dear you said that don't find Him in the books this is not exactly correct since in BG 18.70 says that hearing to Gita with reverence is equivalent to worshipping Krishna. Because Lord is absolute the words that come out of His lotus like mouth are non different from He himself. Hence even hearing them carefully is sort of worshipping Krishna only. His words are non-different from His Person.

NEVER FORGET THISTHING:

KRISHNA DOESN'T WANT SOMEONE'S PERSONAL SERVICE UNTO HIM, HE IS COMPLETE IN HIMSELF. DON'T THINK THAT SERVICE TO KRISHNA MEANS ONLY LOVING SERVICE DONE THROUGH BHAKTI. THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO DO THIS ALSO SERVES KRISHNA, BUT THROUGH HIS ILLUSORY ENERGY AS BG 7.14 STATES. THEY CANNOT OVERCOME IT. SO WHETHER WILLINGLY OR UNWILLINGLY ONE SERVES KRISHNA ALWAYS. SO SRIMAN MAHAPRABHU SAYS THAT JIVA'S CONSTITUIONAL POSITION IS TO SERVE KRISHNA ETERNALLY. IT COULD BE FAVORABLE SERVICE THROUGH BHAKTI OR UNFAVORABLE SERVICE THROUGH MAYA. IN EITHER CASE KRISHNA IS SUPREME ENJOYER AND THE ONLY MASTER. KRISHNA KNOWS THAT SERVICE TO HIM FAVAORABLY IS GOOD AND BRINGS HAPPINESS TO SOUL BUT SERVICE TO HIM THROUGH HIS MAYA BRINGS A LOT OF SORROWS AND TROUBLE WHICH WE ALL ARE EXPERIENCING IN THIS WORLD. BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANTS US TO BE IN DIFFICULTY HE GIVES US SCRIPTURES COMPLYING WHICH WE CAN DEVELOP OUR SERVICE TO GOD IN MOOD OF BHAKTI.

SO WE SHOULD NOT WHIMSICALLY GIVE UP INJUNCTIONS OF SCRIPTURES. KRISHNA HAS LEFT IT TO US FOR EACH ONE OF US TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF. THIS IS CONFIRMED BY BG 18.63.

 

Hope that this meets well

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

>Do you mean to say that Krishna could be

>imaginary character ?

 

Why not ? In the absence of evidence, this possiblity cannot be ruled out. If you think, it is impossible, then I would like to know how.

 

>If you take to devotional service or the

>process of self realization you can find

>Him.

 

There are lots of people, who also admit that after years of devotion, search, etc found nothing. The Gurus might say that these people were not sincere. But that is again guess work. I personally think that is escapism. How do you believe anyone who says that he found God? There is no way he can prove that to anyone. Which means, it becomes a question of faith.

 

>Since no one can serve and love a character

>created in some one's imagination.

 

Why not ? They don't doubt the existence of Krishna. That is faith.

 

>No actual devotee of Lord Krishna will

>actually say like that.

 

Because like I said before, after investing so much of time and thought towards Krishna, they can't near to think that way. Not that I am encouraging people to begin doubting now. There is no scope for doubting here, because no one can ever prove the existence of a God. It is strictly a matter of faith in the books and the Gurus, and faith in all the people who claim to have found God, period.

 

 

>It is insane to even think that human beings who are top most intelligent species will devote their minds and thoughts in love to an illusory character who has no substance, who only exists in their dreams and imagination or fantasies.

 

It is not insane nor suprising, because the person who worships God believes that there is a God. If a person who thinks that God is a fantasy, and yet worships him, then that person is insane and I don't know of anyone like that.

 

> It doesn't sound terrifying but sounds ridiculous to the devotees and especially to those who have realized His presence partially or completely.

 

If I had said positively that Krishna is an imaginary character 100%, then a person who thinks that he ahs realized Krishna, will find my statement ridiculous. However all I am saying that is, that is one of the possibilities. In case you haven't read my statements correctly.

 

>They have realized his presence.

 

Then it is true for them and not for the others. There are also a lot of people who begin to hallucinate over a period of time and actually think they have found God. There are quite a few christians, who have 'personal conversations' with God, which in my opinion is hallucination, while for some others it is marvellous. You can look at it either way.

 

>With the feelings of one’s heart one can

>confirm that God exists.

 

I'll repeat that I am not telling people that there is no God, or to begin doubting his existence. I suggest you read my prevous postings again to verify that for yourself.

 

> Do you mean that Krishna is not God ?

 

1. We don't know for sure, if there was a Krishna.

2. We don't know for sure, if there is a God.

3. Even if 1 and 2 are correct, we still don't know for sure, if Krishna was God or not.

 

The fact is that we don't know. Note that I am not denying anything. In such a situation some people choose to forget the whole thing and some others choose to believe all the 3 statements as true. Strictly faith.

 

 

> What made you think that Lord Krishna could be some poet's imagination which the whole millions of hindus would continue to accept as the aim of their life. ?

 

Because they are faithful. They have faith in the books and the people who came before them.

 

>But Bhagavatam describes them as sinful lot of people. Certainly such people will care nothing to preserve the glory of God.

 

They were considered sinful because they were not following the Vedic religion. Not follwing the Vedas was considered a sin. They had their own Mlechcha Dharmas. While their religion may not have permitted them to view Krishna as an incarnation they would have surely had records of his activities. If the Bhagavatam's statement that his glory had spread to all the 3 worlds is true.

 

>But as I told you that Madhva's meeting

>with Vyasa deva has not been questioned.

 

When did our people question anything? They never doubted Rama building a bridge acoss the ocean, nor Krishna lifting a mountain with a finger. I raised that point because I seriously doubt that Madhva himself made such a claim. Even if he did, he may have had a vision. Otherwise it would mean Vyasa is 5000 years old and still alive, which I have every reason to doubt.

 

About all the quotes from BG, SB and self-realization, that is based on faith and we cannot bring in all that, when we discuss dates and authenticity. They are 2 different topics altogether.

 

To summarise,

 

1. I have my own doubts about how true all these books and biographies are. Obviously as a devotee, you have no doubts, which is fine.

 

2. My point was, the SB is spotless for faithful people. However if you look at it from a logical perspective, the questions are endless. The important thing here is that these questions can never be answered. The options are simple. Be faithful and trust the book, or forget it. Trying to prove it's authenticity will get us nowhere.

 

3. About faith.

 

Faith means 'Accepting without questioning'. Which means, there no logic involved and none necessary. Logic and faith cannot co-exist.

 

Cheers

 

[ggohil]

Hari Bole

 

Shuvji:

 

Just few thoughts.

 

“People who have spent years in devotion and found nothing”. But at the same time there are many people who have spent time in devotion and have found something. I guess there is an argument on each side.

 

If one receives some sort of reciprocation from faith. Then who is to say that was imagination or the reciprocation was not from Krsna. If there is really is reciprocation then may be Krsna is not

imaginary.

 

“No one can prove existence of God”

I always thought all forms of proofs are in a material form. Since God claims he is not of material base, then perhaps there is no way of proving his existence.

 

My faith came after seeing logic in BG.

I agree at closer scrutiny there are many things which do not make sense. On the other hand there is a possibility we are misunderstanding things that we do not understand.

 

No one really knows what one feels or at what level. How can one with any authority disqualify Transcendental Bliss since we cannot look inside what one feels. For example, one’s soul may travel to Krsna’s abode and experience transcendental bliss.

( This may be impossible to prove.)

Nonetheless, one would have experienced transcendental bliss. Even though one may not be able to adequately explain it.

 

[shvu]

 

One more point is that there is no such thing as Transcendental Bliss. As long as you feel Bliss, or are aware of being blissful, it is not transcendental. And if there is such a thing as Transcendental bliss, there is no way anyone will know it, or can talk about it.