kimfelix

Dark Warrior, thank you for your long explanation, which I have read through carefully a couple of times. However, most of what you say seems to be merely assertion based on your personal faith. I can't find anything in there that is conclusive for a person who doesn't have that faith. I can accept that the Gajendra-moksha story does have higher teachings embedded within it, but these only matter to a person who has prior faith. It seems that you need to have the faith in order to get the meaning, but why should anyone have that faith? I think it would be better not to use words like ludicrous or idiotic in relation to people who have different opinions. It's a bit rude and rather lessens the dignity of your own points. My real point is that so much religious discourse seems to be based on a priori assumptions of the truth of this or that text. But how do you get to that base point?

In the Valmiki Ramayana it says that he captured Ravana and held him as a prisoner. Then Ravana's father, Pulaha or Pulastya, who was a Brahmin came and begged charity from Kartaviryarjuna. He asked that his son be set free. Kartaviryarjuna was killed by Rama Jamadagneya because of an insult given to his father Jamadagni.

Thank you for those replies. Firstly, I think I would find it difficult to separate out what is the essence. For example, a lot of the SB talks about Krishna as being God; but I can't make myself believe that God is that person because the fact that is says so in that book isn't quite enough. And, secondly, it's not just the Srimad Bhagavatam. That was just an example. When Jehovah's Witnesses or people like that come to my house and show me bits of the Bible that prove what they are saying is true, it just seems pointless because they haven't explained to me first why I should take that book so seriously. And it would be the same with Muslims and the Qu'ran. I just don't get why we can or should believe in these books. In any case they all say different things and you have to make your own decisions, which is like depending on your own mental and intellectual powers in the end.

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.