is there eternal hell fire for the unsaved?

[Kulapavana]

as young devotees, we are often told a very simplified version of events: both material and spiritual (and even that simple version can be very confusing for most of us).

 

it is a fact, that in our sampradaya there are significant differences of opinion regarding things like age of Bhagavatam, structure of the universe, literality of passages in the scriptures, etc.

 

to accept ANY of these stated opinions of our acharyas as 100% correct, immutable and unquestionable in any way may initially be good for our faith and spiritual life, etc. but with time often leads to serious problems in our spiritual development.

 

all that is partly due to our tradition over-emphasizing the role and position of individual gurus and their supposed infallibility and perfection in every sense. such concept of the guru is more Tantric than Vedic, and is not supported by real life events, such as the above referenced differences of opinion between our acharyas. yet, for neophytes, this approach with respect to the guru position has a lot of merit.

[Guest guest]

 

From a modern, critical, rational perspective, when the puranas are studied critically, it is apparent that they were not written by one author or even by a single generation. They have been rehashed over the centuries several times until no clear origin can be assigned to them and therefore no one really tries their hand at it.

 

 

Unfortunately, a position becomes neither "critical" nor "rational" simply by repetition. The fact is, there is insufficient basis to make the judgements above. At best, they are conjecture. At worst, they represent bad science.

 

Where is the evidence that more than one author was involved in the Bhagavatam's composition? Where is the evidence that the Bhagavatam was rewritten over time? The more we see these points made as if they are obvious facts, the more I question them and continue to get nothing but silence from the self-proclaimed rationalists. Every now and they they might refer me to a book, which in turn is based on more suppositions, etc. But where is the actual evidence?

 

 

What is possible is to assign "end dates" to them and this is what is tried.

 

 

However, "end dates" are not the same as "date of composition," and it is truly disappointing that university scholars routinely fail to distinguish between them. An "end date" means that the text could not have been composed after the date in question. It does not mean the the text was composed at that time. Nor does it mean that the text was not composed prior to that date.

 

 

Without going into details, this kind of research gives the final form of the SB a date between 600 AD - 800 AD. The major factors that go into dating (the end date) are that it is post Ashoka (and hence, post Buddhist as are all Puranas), but before the trend of Radha worship (she is not mentioned in any of the old Krishan related texts such as Mahabharatha, Vishnu Purana, Hari Vamsha & SB) and the fact that the Sri Vaishnava founder (11th century) has not quoted from this text although it contains plenty of support for his doctrine.

 

 

There are several problems with the above reasoning.

 

1) The assumption that the Bhagavatam can only speak of events that have already occurred is itself based on an atheistic or at best, a non-theistic worldview. If one is truly objective, then one must be open to multiple possibilites, rather than simply picking the most sterile view that happens the possibilities to the boundries of one's myopic vision.

 

2) The assumption that the Bhagavatam should necessarily mention all devotional practices and traditions existing at the time: this is fairly arbitrary and without definitive basis. There is no reason to assume that the Bhagavatam would mention every devotional practice existing in India at the time of its composition, especially if the practices in question were highly esoteric or limited to specific sects.

 

3) The assumption that the text could not have existed before 11th century because Ramanuja did not quote from it. This presupposes that Ramanuja would have perceived it to be a supporting text (which is less than obvious, given the many Sri Vaishnavas I have met who contest this thing or that found within it), and that he would have found it as a helpful supporting body of evidence. In fact, which opponent of Ramanuja's at the time would have acknowledged and respected supporting evidence from the Bhagavatam? Not the Advaitins, who claim they base everything on shruti. In short, there is no reason to assume that Ramanuja's failure to quote from it implies that it did not exist during his time.

 

4) The claim that Radha is not mentioned in any Krishna texts... this is simply false. Radha is explicitly mentioned in the Narada Purana and Brahma-vaivarta Purana. Here, I often note that some "scholars" will then claim that those sources are later, because of Radha worship described therein. But there we have circular logic: Radha worship is recent, because old puranas don't mention her, and if a purana mentions her, it is recent because it mentions Radha.

 

In short, we need to critically examine such theories rather than becoming complacent with theories based on bad science and arbitrary assumptions.

 

--Alpa

[jagatpurush]

>However, "end dates" are not the same as "date of composition," and it is truly disappointing that university scholars routinely fail to distinguish between them. An "end date" means that the text could not have been composed after the date in question. It does not mean the the text was composed at that time. Nor does it mean that the text was not composed prior to that date.

 

the oldest scriptures we have are generally written on palm leaves (not metal or stone, since the scriptures were too long). and the longest these can last is, say, 1200 years. that is why the oldest copies of the scriptures we have date from 600 to 800 AD. since the tradition is based primarily on sruti, this does not prove that the composition itself is not of much greater antiquity.

 

[Guest guest]

check Caitanaya Caritamrta the account of Jr.Hari das commits suicide, then becomes ghost thats hell enough to be in separation of the LORD the discussion and discription of various hellish conditions of hell in the Srimad Bhagavatam is not a pretty one