Sastra is old? Modernize?one who preaches without compromise is confidential servant

[krsna]

 

 

 

So if this confidential knowledge, one who preaches without any compromise, he is the confidential servant of Krsna. There is no compromise. This is real religion.

 

Krsna says, na ca tasmad manusyesu kascid me priya-krttamah. So this is the person who has received the authority to draw mercy water from the ocean of mercy of Krsna. Saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastraih. And what Krsna said five thousand years ago, the same thing Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, same thing. There was no change, as there was no change between the statement of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Narottama dasa Thakura. Sadhu sastra.

 

 

As sastra, there is no change. Not that “Modernize. The sastra should be changed.” No. That is nonsense. That is not sastra. Sastra cannot be changed. “Circumstantially, it will be changed, seasonal changes.” No. That is not sastra. Sastra means it is perpetual. What Krsna said five thousand years ago or Krsna said some forty millions of years ago to the sun god… Imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam [bg. 4.1]. He says, “I am talking to you that puratanam yogam.” Not that “Because it has passed millions of years and now it is a different time, so I will have to change.” No. He said, “I am talking to you that very old system.” Is it not? Just see. The sastra cannot be changed. God’s word cannot be changed.

 

Then what will be the difference between God and ourself? He is always perfect. He is always perfect. What He said forty millions of years ago, what He said five thousand years ago, that is also correct up to date. That is sastra. Not that “So many years have passed and it has become old. Now let us reform it and put it into new way.” No. You can put the same thing in a new way, but you cannot change the principle. Sadhu sastra guru-vakya, tinete kariya aikya. Sastra is never changed. And the sadhu… Sadhu means who follows the sastras. He is sadhu. He also does not change. Sadhu, sastra.

 

And guru? Guru means who follows the sastra and sadhu. So there are three, the same. A guru will not change, that “It was spoken five thousand years ago. That is not applicable now. Now I am giving you something new, jugglery.” He is useless. Sadhu sastra guru-vakya tinete kariya aikya. Yah sastra-vidhim utsrjya vartate kama karatah, na siddhim avapnoti [bg. 16.23]. These things are there.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.6.8 — Vrndavana, November 30, 1976

 

[Guest guest]

The Bhagavata

By

Kedarnath Dutta Bhaktivinode

 

The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth and He gave it to Vyasa, when we earnestly seek for it. Truth is eternal and unexchausted. The soul receives a revelation when it is anxious for it. The souls of the great thinkers of the by-gone ages, who now live spiritually, often approach our inquiring spirit and assist it in its development. Thus Vyasa was assisted by Narada and Brahma. Our shastras, or in other words, books of thought do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father. No book is without its errors. God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be. Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience.

 

Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from inside "No, Vyasa! you cannot rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of by-gone days! You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the Fountain-head of truth where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind." Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so. Liberty then is the principle, which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the 23rd text 21st Chapter 11th skandha of the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love.

[Kulapavana]

11.21.23

 

"Those statements of scripture promising fruitive rewards do not prescribe the ultimate good for men hut are merely enticements for executing beneficial religious duties, like promises of candy spoken to induce a child to take beneficial medicine"

 

other version:

 

"Those awards the scriptures speak are for man not the highest good; they are merely enticements with the idea of prompting for the ultimate good, just the same as what one says to make someone take a medicine."

 

------------------------

 

Srila Thakur Bhaktivinoda: "In the 23rd text 21st Chapter 11th skandha of the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the shastras and not the words."

 

that is not quite what this verse actually says... is it?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Statements in the scriptures can be read or understood or interpreted in different ways.

 

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave 64 different explanations for the verse in Srimad Bhagavatam "atmaramas ca munayo...".

 

When Sri Chaitanya had a debate with Digvijayi Pandit, Sri Keshava Kashmiri, he asked the Pandit to compose some verses glorifying the Ganga-devi, and when the Pandit immediately composed some verses Mahaprabhu memorized those verses and repeated them, pointing out some grammatical errors in them. The pandit was stunned. Then Sri Nimai re-presented the verses the Digvijayi had composed, giving unexpected new insights from those verses based on the unusual (not wrong) grammer of those verses. A new and unexpected meaning was found in those verses about the Ganga, which even the original author of those verses (Digvijayi) had not anticipated.

 

So, Bhaktivinode Thakur's reading and explanation of this verse is not WRONG, Kulapavana.

 

Different Acharyas can have different viewpoints about particular things. It is a fact.

 

- Muralidhar

[Kulapavana]

in his early days ST Bhaktivinoda did and wrote a lot of controversial things.

[Guest guest]

Gaudiya Acharyas such as Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur and Srila Sridhar Maharaj promoted and published the "controversial" books of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur such as Sri Krishna Samhita and this "Bhagavata lecture". You will find this Bhagavata lecture has been published by Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti, Bagh Bazaar Math, Chaitanya Math, Chaitanya Saraswat Math etc.

 

If you choose to disbelieve in the way of seeing things that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur presented, that is your freedom.

 

If, instead, someone were to choose to think that there is only one way ("the right way") of interpreting the Vedas and Smriti, then they can go right ahead and do that. The jiva has free will. But alternatively we can follow Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, who wrote in his book Sri Tattva Sutra:

 

14. tesam paratvam kecidaparebhedamitare tubhayam

 

The seers of the truth have established three views regarding the living entity and the Supreme Lord, namely (a) oneness, (b) difference, and © simultaneous oneness and difference.

 

15. sarvesam samanjasyam satvika vijnanasya bhramatvabhavat pramana satbhavac ca

 

There cannot be a mistake in the scientific evidence of transcendental revelation. So, all these (three) views are in complete agreement.

 

===========

 

That is, three totally different viewpoints can all be right.

 

This is what Srila Sridhar Maharaj taught us.

 

[Guest guest]

 

<h2>Sri Krishna said to Uddhava:</h2>

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 11.21.23

phalam srutir iyam nrnam na sreyo rocanam param

sreyo-vivaksaya- proktam yatha- bhaisajya-rocanam

 

SYNONYMS

 

phala-srutih — the statements of scripture promising rewards (literally, "fruits"); iyam — these; nrnam — for men; na — are not; sreyah — the highest good; rocanam — enticement; param — merely; sreyah — the ultimate good; vivaksaya- — with the idea of saying; proktam — spoken; yatha- — just as; bhaisajya — for taking medicine; rocanam — inducement.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Those statements of scripture promising fruitive rewards do not prescribe the ultimate good for men but are merely enticements for executing beneficial religious duties, like promises of candy spoken to induce a child to take beneficial medicine.

 

<h2>Then Sri Krishna says:</h2>

 

SB 11.21.33-34: The worshipers of demigods think, "We shall worship the demigods in this life, and by our sacrifices we shall go to heaven and enjoy there. When that enjoyment is finished we shall return to this world and take birth as great householders in aristocratic families." Being excessively proud and greedy, such persons are bewildered by the flowery words of the Vedas. They are not attracted to topics about Me, the Supreme Lord.

 

SB 11.21.42: In the entire world no one but Me actually understands the confidential purpose of Vedic knowledge. Thus people do not know what the Vedas are actually prescribing in the ritualistic injunctions of karma-ka-n?d?a, or what object is actually being indicated in the formulas of worship found in the upa-sana--ka-n?d?a, or that which is elaborately discussed through various hypotheses in the jña-na-ka-n?d?a section of the Vedas.

 

SB 11.21.43: I am the ritualistic sacrifice enjoined by the Vedas, and I am the worshipable Deity. It is I who am presented as various philosophical hypotheses, and it is I alone who am then refuted by philosophical analysis. The transcendental sound vibration thus establishes Me as the essential meaning of all Vedic knowledge. The Vedas, elaborately analyzing all material duality as nothing but My illusory potency, ultimately completely negate this duality and achieve their own satisfaction.

 

=====================================

 

The meaning here is just as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur presented it. That statements in the scriptures which promise rewards for pious activities are made for people who need "inducements" or "enticements". But ultimately people should not concern themselves with mundane life since the real goal of life is to attain Krishna's service.

 

[Kulapavana]

"If you choose to disbelieve in the way of seeing things that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur presented, that is your freedom."

-------------------

isn't that PRECISELY what Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur presented? that the words of the shastra need to be seen in terms of time, place and circumstances? if we are to apply this approach to the words of Srila Vyasadeva, why not Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura? he spoke about Vedic sages being limited by, and expressing the knowledge in terms, "the current understanding of the world"... so what is so special about the 19th century understanding of the world? was it complete? absolute?

 

 

while Srila Bhaktisiddhanta published the early works of his father, he did not use in his preaching the approach to shastra as presented in these early works of SBT. neither did Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

AND, more importantly, at which point of his life are we to accept the words of S.Bhaktivinoda Thakura as absolute?

 

the answer is: at the point where his teachings truly reflect those of our sampradaya. that is a definition and master test for ALL gurus in the succession.

[Kulapavana]

have you read Srila Bhaktivinoda's Autobiography (Svalikhita Jivani)? that is a very revealing and true account of how a great devotee develops into a great acharya.

 

To glorify a true Acharya one does not need to resort to creating myths and legends about them!

 

All you need is a humble understanding of their actual life.

[Guest guest]

 

The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth and He gave it to Vyasa, when we earnestly seek for it. Truth is eternal and unexchausted. The soul receives a revelation when it is anxious for it. The souls of the great thinkers of the by-gone ages, who now live spiritually, often approach our inquiring spirit and assist it in its development. Thus Vyasa was assisted by Narada and Brahma. Our shastras, or in other words, books of thought do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father. No book is without its errors. God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be. Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience.

 

 

This very well applies for Gaudiyas like this who mislead people.

 

Vedas are unadultered unlike Puranas, Dharma Shastras etc. This has been the opinion of Acharyas like Ramanuja, Madhvacharya etc.

 

Besides Veda Vyasa is SVAYAM NARAYANA. He does not need BrahmA oe Narada to teach HIM. This again shows the wrong philosophy and blasphemous teachings of Gaudiyas and ISKCON. With your blasphemous ideas like this you are going to take everybody to hell.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

It is like someone has a jar of pure water and they hand it to someone who drinks from it. He drinks pure water. While he is holding it something from the atmosphere blows in with the breeze, some dust or leaves etc. The water is still pure but now there is something different also in the jar.

 

He passes it on mixed with a little dust and eventually more blows in. The water is always pure but what gets passed on is now carrying something else with it.

 

We should be interested in the unchanging essence of the scripture. We need to become Paramahamsa and learn to separate out and the essence.

 

We want to be lazy and just take anything that is contained in the covers of a book titled "Veda" and just "believe" it.

 

Krishna Consciousness is much more than mere "belief". It is about realization.

[Guest guest]

 

We want to be lazy and just take anything that is contained in the covers of a book titled "Veda" and just "believe" it.

 

 

I do not think you have any knowledge in this regard. It is better for you not to write on this subject.

[Guest guest]

Kulapavana,

 

We know for sure that Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati published the most controversial book of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, "Sri Krishna Samhita", not just in one edition, but twice. When the first edition was sold out it was reprinted. There is no doubt that Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati considered Sri Krishna Samhita as authoritative and that his disciples studied Sri Krishna Samhita and preached what is inside Sri Krishna Samhita.

 

- muralidhar

[Guest guest]

 

An eternal associate of Lord Hari may do things that are "unexpected" such as eating meat or working in a kitchen where meat is prepared as a food, but still they are to be respected and trusted:

 

For instance, Mayavati, the transcendental consort of the incarnation of the Lord, Sri Pradyumna, was living her life in this interesting way, prior to her re-union with her Lord.

 

 

==================================================

 

 

Krishna Book Chapter 55: Pradyumna Born to Krsna and Rukmini

 

 

 

There was a demon of the name Sambara who was destined to be killed by this Pradyumna. The Sambara demon knew of his destiny, and as soon as he learned that Pradyumna was born, he took the shape of a woman and kidnapped the baby from the maternity home less than ten days after his birth. The demon took him and threw him directly into the sea. But, as it is said, "Whoever is protected by Krsna, no one can kill; and whoever is destined to be killed by Krsna, no one can protect." When Pradyumna was thrown into the sea, a big fish immediately swallowed him. Later on this fish was caught by the net of a fisherman, and the fish was later on sold to the Sambara demon. In the kitchen of the demon there was a maidservant whose name was Mayavati. This woman had formerly been the wife of Cupid, and had been called Rati. When the fish was presented to the demon Sambara, it was taken charge of by his cook, who was to make it into a palatable fish preparation. Demons and the Raksasas are accustomed to eat meat, fish and similar non-vegetarian foods. Similarly, other demons, like Ravana, Kamsa and Hiranyakasipu, although born of brahmana and ksatriya fathers, used to take meat and flesh without discrimination. This practice is still prevalent in India, and those who are meat and fish eaters are generally called demons and Raksasas.

 

When the cook was cutting the fish, he found a nice baby within the belly of the fish, and he immediately presented him to the charge of Mayavati, who was an assistant in the kitchen affairs. This woman was surprised to see how such a nice baby could remain within the belly of a fish, and the situation perplexed her. The great sage Narada then appeared and explained to her about the birth of Pradyumna, how the baby had been taken away by Sambara and later on thrown into the sea, and so on. In this way the whole story was disclosed to Mayavati, who had formerly been Rati, the wife of Cupid. Mayavati knew that she had previously been the wife of Cupid; after her husband was burned into ashes by the wrath of Lord Siva, she was always expecting him to come back again in the material form. This woman was engaged for cooking rice and dhal in the kitchen, but when she got this nice baby and understood that he was Cupid, her own husband, she naturally took charge of him and with great affection began to bathe him. Miraculously, the baby very swiftly grew up, and within a very short period he became a very beautiful young man. His eyes were just like the petals of lotus flowers, his arms were very long, down to the knees, and any woman who happened to see him became captivated by his bodily beauty.

 

Mayavati could understand that her former husband, Cupid, born as Pradyumna, had grown into such a nice young man, and she also gradually became captivated and lusty. She was smiling before him with a feminine attractiveness, expressing her desire for sexual unity. He therefore inquired from her, "How is it possible that first of all you were affectionate like a mother, and now you are expressing the symptoms of a lusty woman? What is the reason for such a change?" On hearing this statement from Pradyumna, the woman, Rati, replied, "My dear sir, you are the son of Lord Krsna. Before you were ten days old, you were stolen by the Sambara demon and later on thrown into the water and swallowed up by a fish. In this way you have come under my care, but actually, in your former life as Cupid, I was your wife; therefore, my manifestation of conjugal symptoms is not at all incompatible. Sambara wanted to kill you, and he is endowed with various kinds of mystic powers. Therefore, before he again attempts to kill you, please kill him as soon as possible with your divine power. Since you were stolen by Sambara, your mother, Rukmini-devi, has been in a very grievous condition, like a cuckoo bird who has lost her babies. She is very affectionate toward you, and since you have been taken away from her, she has been living like a cow aggrieved over the loss of its calf."

 

Mayavati had mystic knowledge of supernatural power. Supernatural powers are generally known as maya, and to supersede all such supernatural power there is another supernatural power which is called mahamaya. Mayavati had the knowledge of the mystic power of mahamaya, and she delivered to Pradyumna this specific energetic power in order to defeat the mystic powers of the Sambara demon.

[Kulapavana]

think about it for a moment Muralidhariji:

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wanted us to see beyond the literary meaning of the verses, and to see the words of the Vedic sages in terms of their possible limitations with respect to the contemporary world view. True or false?

 

Wouldn't that apply to his words as well? With all due respect, but his concept of Hanuman being a south Indian man is prepostrous... 2 million years ago there were humanoid tribes in south India and I will believe that before I will believe his theory.

 

The concept of nitya-siddha is actually very deep. Was Arjuna not a nitya-siddha devotee? Was his understanding always perfect? That is not the meaning of nitya-siddha. Was S. Bhaktivinoda's eating of meat and fish until the age of 42 also part of nitya-siddha lila and perfection?

 

The value of "Sri Krishna Samhita" is not so much in detail of explanations given by Thakura, but in suggestion of POSSIBLE APPROACH to some hard to accept concepts in the shastra. That is how I see it.

 

By your blind acceptance of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's words you are making the very mistake he is trying to help you avoid.

[Guest guest]

The thing is, I asked my Guru Maharaj about these "controversial" things Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur said, and he said Srila Bhaktivinode Thakurs way of understanding is correct. He told me various examples of the "controversial" things that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati also taught. But the most fundamental of these things, of course, is that the scriptures are written by people and that we, as souls, and people, can know the same truths that the rishis saw. Moreover, that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur has seen everything the rishis saw, AND MORE.

[Kulapavana]

that stuff actually does not bother me at all, but I do understand these things differently, altough I'm not attached to these views.

 

your faith allows you to be comfortable with your understanding, and that is natural, altough common sense and logic dictate otherwise.

 

the implications of always placing faith over logic and common sense are profound.

 

once again: the principle SBT applied to the words of the rishis, applies to his words as well.

 

some Gaudiya Vaishnava devotees entered profoundly tantric way of interpreting the guru tattva, while I lean much more to the vedic way in that regard. the price to pay for mistakes in the tantric way is too much for me to bear... I have paid it once... you know what they say: dont bet what you cant afford to lose...

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Doesn't Bhaktivinode say in the intro somewhere that he personally believes the orthodox view over the modern scholars?

[Guest guest]

No he doesn't.

 

And in many other places besides Sri Krishna Samhita he promotes a "modernist" approach.

 

So did Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

[Gaurhari]

From the Preface to Sri Krsna samhita (translated by Bhumipati Dasa; edited by Pundarik Vidyanidhi Das; Vrajraj Press 1998):

 

With folded hands I request the old-fashioned readers to understand that if some conclusion is found herein that is contrary to their preconceptions, it was written with particular persons in mind. Whatever is written about religious codes, however, should be accepted by all. The conclusions regarding subsidiary topics will yield the result of purifying some particular persons' knowledge. There is no profit or loss for one who believes or disbelieves in the different subject matters described in the introduction regarding historical incidents and time according to sastric reason and argument. History and knowledge of time is a part of Artha-sastra, economic scriptures. If one considers history and time according to reason and argument, there will be great benefit for India. By this, one can also hope to make gradual advancement on the path towards the ultimate goal of life. If reason and argument is combined with ancient beliefs, then all the accumulated moss of misconceptions will be destroyed, and in due course of time the odor of infamy will be eradicated from the people of India; then their knowledge will regain its health. It is my prayer to the respected professional scholars and devotees not to disregard this Sri Krsna-samhita afer seeing the independent conclusions mentioned in the introduction. If for no other reason, they will be forced to respect this book because Krsna's names, qualities, and pastimes are described herein. Sri Narada Muni has stated in the Srimad Bhagavatam (12.12.52) (quotes verse)

 

"On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes and so on of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest." . . . .

 

From the Conclusion to Sri Krsna samhita:

 

The main purport and necessity for writing this Sri Krsna-samhita have already been described in the Introduction. We have covered all relevant topics in the verses of this samhita, but we have not used the method that modern scholars use in considering these topics. Therefore I fear that many people will reject Sri Krsna-samhita as an old-fashioned book. I am in a dilemma. If I would have used the modern process when I composed the verses, then the ancient scholars would have certainly disregarded the book. For this reason, I have composed the main book according to the ancient method, and I have written the Introduction and the Conclusion according to the modern. In this way I have tried to satisfy both classes of people. Therefore I have been compelled to accept the fault of repitition. In this Conclusion I will briefly consider all topics. . . ."

 

It seems from all this that Thakur Bhaktivinod had a certain preaching purpose in mind in composing the samhita. He wanted to bring the modern scholars to the path of Krsna bhakti.

[krsna]

"It seems from all this that Thakur Bhaktivinod had a certain preaching purpose in mind in composing the samhita. He wanted to bring the modern scholars to the path of Krsna bhakti. "

 

[Guest guest]

"And in many other places besides Sri Krishna Samhita he promotes a "modernist" approach.

 

So did Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur."

 

I understand it also in this way. As Gaurhari quoted from Brahma-Samhita:

"If one considers history and time according to reason and argument, there will be great benefit for India. By this, one can also hope to make gradual advancement on the path towards the ultimate goal of life. If reason and argument is combined with ancient beliefs, then all the accumulated moss of misconceptions will be destroyed, and in due course of time the odor of infamy will be eradicated from the people of India."

 

"Reason and argument" is not only a strategy to "bring the modern scholars to the path of Krsna bhakti", but also, to "destroy the accumulated moss of misconceptions" for the benefit of all. The goal should always be: to increase the wish to become a loving servant.

 

Nitai-Gauranga Haribol

 

 

[Kulapavana]

"Doesn't Bhaktivinode say in the intro somewhere that he personally believes the orthodox view over the modern scholars?"

-------------------

 

It is much more complex than that. First of all, his understanding of the Vedic knowledge and our tradition evolved with time. It is very obvious when you read his autobiography (which I certainly recommend to all serious devotees). Later in life he was a lot more orthodox in his views.

 

Second, there IS some value in the approach SBT proposes, but it is far more subtle than some of the "simplifications" and "rationalizations" he proposes in his early writings. His "simplifications" and "rationalizations" suffer from the same limitation he is trying to eradicate - presenting Vedic wisdom in accordance with the scientific understanding of the time.

 

Third, in the long term, our initial beliefs (correct or not) are quite unimportant, yet - and that MUST be stressed - the gurus in any bonafide sampradaya must preach along the line of sampradaya siddhanta, and not use the "end justifies the means" approach to change the tradition to get followers. if that was true, why bother with trying to honestly present our tradition at all? If you do not present ALL the things truthfully, why should we trust your truthfullness when it comes to KRISHNA?

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

 

Third, in the long term, our initial beliefs (correct or not) are quite unimportant, yet - and that MUST be stressed - the gurus in any bonafide sampradaya must preach along the line of sampradaya siddhanta, and not use the "end justifies the means" approach to change the tradition to get followers. if that was true, why bother with trying to honestly present our tradition at all? If you do not present ALL the things truthfully, why should we trust your truthfullness when it comes to KRISHNA?

 

 

True there is no need to lie to present Krsna consciousness but still one should be discriminating in that presentation.

 

For instance we were talking about the lotus flower from Vishnu to Brahma. When we speak of the creation story according to Bhagvatam which way do we present that?

 

We can just say it straight out that a gigantic lotus flower grew from the navel of Vishnu and Brahma woke up on it and learned to create again from the Lord.

 

Or we could say that the from the Supreme Lord's form the souls from the past creation along with their material desires were brought forth from Vishnu and the Lord taught Brahma how to redesign the cosmic manifestation in a way that would accomodate their past desires and activities.

 

I believe the first way might leave the hearer thinking he just heard an old myth and the second would lead to him to ask more questions.

 

 

 

 

[Kulapavana]

I have no problem with adjusting the presentation of Vedic knowledge using statements that are ultimately true. In this example, Brahma saw the totality of matter and jivas as a gigantic lotus flower. What an elegant way to store those ingredients! What a beautiful arrangement! This is God! He is not just practical. Everything He does is full of beauty and elegance. Sure we can say much less than that - no harm in that - as long as we are not inventing falshoods to appease non-believers.