shvu

A correction : I wrote, --- Does the dominant western civilisation accept that Adam was the first man and was created by God? I doubt it. I think most people today are in favor of the theory of evolution. --- I mean most people who have some background in science are in favor of Evolution. I am ruling out the 'Believers' here. Just like some of our people think that there was a Narda, who used to travel everywhere and would meet all kinds of people. But for some secret reason suddenly stopped doing so, after history began to be documented. That is until some 2000 years back. Cheers

What do we mean by the 'brain is active'? If the Brain is active at all times, what does Coma mean ? Obviously a person is not thinking when he/she is asleep. Far as I can see, if a person is not thinking, then the brain is pretty much in an inactive state. Cheers

Hi Animesh, --- I have heard many times that vedas and puranas are full of knowledge and that every knowledge of modern science is present in them. I can believe that vedas and puranas are full of knowledge but I doubt that every knwoledge in modern science has been derived from them. --- To think that all aspects of modern day science is present in the Vedas is hardly true. The Vedas are atleast 3500 years old. If such an advanced level of technology was available at that time, given the progress rate of man, can you imagine the Technology level in India today? There are stories of finding detailed descriptions on how to build aircrafts. So why wasn't any of them ever built? According to history, all that the Indians were doing wasfarming, rearing cows, pottery, masonry, etc. The birth of the Industrial revolution is less than 1000 years old. If man could progress so far in just so many years, it is impossible to believe that India deteriorated to this level in 3500 years ! Perhaps there was an advanced civilization very long back. All the descriptions of aircrafts, nuclear weapons, etc may have been handed down traditionally since a long time. Of course, this is strictly speculation. Anyone read Nostradammus? He predicted that Louis Pasteur would discover the terchnique of Pasteuization. What is interesting is the statement, which is something like, "...will rediscover Pasteurization, which was lost to mankind for a long time" So according to him, this was something that was known to man a long time back and was lost. Sounds interesting ! Cheers

Hi Animesh, --- I have heard many times that vedas and puranas are full of knowledge and that every knowledge of modern science is present in them. I can believe that vedas and puranas are full of knowledge but I doubt that every knwoledge in modern science has been derived from them. --- To think that all aspects of modern day science is present in the Vedas is hardly true. The Vedas are atleast 3500 years old. If such an advanced level of technology was available at that time, given the progress rate of man, can you imagine the Technology level in India today? There are stories of finding detailed descriptions on how to build aircrafts. So why wasn't any of them ever built? According to history, all that the Indians were doing wasfarming, rearing cows, pottery, masonry, etc. The birth of the Industrial revolution is less than 1000 years old. If man could progress so far in just so many years, it is impossible to believe that India deteriorated to this level in 3500 years ! Perhaps there was an advanced civilization very long back. All the descriptions of aircrafts, nuclear weapons, etc may have been handed down traditionally since a long time. Of course, this is strictly speculation. Anyone read Nostradammus? He predicted that Louis Pasteur would discover the terchnique of Pasteuization. What is interesting is the statement, which is something like, "...will rediscover Pasteurization, which was lost to mankind for a long time" So according to him, this was something that was known to man a long time back and was lost. Sounds interesting ! Cheers

Hi Gauracandra, --- You have mentioned in a previous post that Rama and Krishna are mythical characters while Buddha and Jesus are historical characters. Yet you offer no proof that either the Buddha or Jesus ever actually existed or performed the activities attributed to them. --- The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is available thru multiple sources [excluding the NT]. The Jews have a record written soon after his death, where they have written unfavorable things about Jesus. The Romans have an entry in their history about the prosecution of Christus, the creator of the name by Pilot. And this was at a time, when the Romans were totally against the concept of christianity. There is a Roman general's diary that talks about Jesus. All these people had no business writing about a fictious personality. None of them were christians. All this shows that a man named Jesus did exist during that time and was prosecuted. But it does not/cannot show that this man performed miracles or came back from the dead. And I don't believe that either. Coming to the Buddha, there is still some controvery over his dates. But the discrepancy is very low, and they all point towards 500 bc. The growth of Buddhism from the point of his death, is clear. And from the time of Askoha [300 bc], history is more or less very clear. The Buddha was an ordinary man, who lived an ordinary life, something that one can believe and accept. Why would anyone doubt his existence? --- While you may question the existence of Krsna I can assure you there are other ‘Shvu’s’ of the world who question the very existence of Jesus Christ. --- Good, I like that. If our Indians had done this a few 1000 years back, things would have been ver different. And for those who doubt the existence of jesus, there is proof, if they are willing to investigate. btw do you know why these people do not doubt Aristotle or Plato, although they lived before Jesus? Because they do not have miracles like turning wine into water, born to a Virgin, etc attributed to them. Which is the same reason why one doubts Krishna. --- The reason why you accept Christ as an historical personage, is not because there is proof of his existence [in point of fact there is no historical proof that he existed at all] --- Sorry there....as I have explained above. --- ...but because western civilization, the dominant civilization today, accepts his existence. --- Does the dominant western civilisation accept that Adam was the first man and was created by God? I doubt it. I think most people today are in favor of the theory of evolution. They recognize the OT as a religious book written mainly for the Jews of Israel and is not to be taken as a historical account of mankind and the world. --- Yet you can not offer any more proof that Christ existed than you expect others to provide with regard to Krsna. --- Sorry again...There is proof for the existence of Jesus while there is absolutely none for Krishna. --- What some consider to be mythology others consider to be history. The winner writes the history books. --- Yes, but there is a limit to how much of manipulation that the winner can introduce. If things were that way, probably the British would have ended up claiming that the Vedas were written after the Christ. That was not so. Max Muller learnt Sanskrit and took up the big task of translating all the principle Upanshads into engish making them available to the whole world. What was the 'hidden motive' there? Anyway, our Indians have been doing considerable research in this area to show that the Aryan Invasion theory is false, and to show that the Vedic religion is much older than believed. Why do you think they haven't come up with anything yet? There is no foreign intervention now. --- Unfortunately, due to cultural imperialism the history of other cultures has been subjugated and relegated to “mythology”. --- Let us take a simple example. The Bhagavatam which is perhaps the most detailed account of the History of Hinduism and Krishna says this, O Great King ! I have narrated to you the stories of many who lived to make their names famous in their life time and then to pass away and become a memory soon after. These narratives are only the literary device I have used with a view to instil into you the importance of renunciation and realisation. They have no significance in themselves and are not to be taken as literal facts. -SB 12.3.14 What do you say to this? However our people will conveniently avoid such statements. They like to and want everyone to believe that all the Puranas are true accounts. From all this, I personally believe that the British scholars are being shown in a bad light by our own for obvious reasons. While patriotism is good, I am sure that you may have noticed that the average westerner is more rational and realistic in his approach than the average Indian. Let us see our scholars achieve the task of having our Indian [atleast] history text-books rewritten to demolish the AIT theory. Then perhaps, we can begin to take their statements more seriously. I assure you, I would be very happy to see evidence that Krishna really lived 5000 years back or earlier. Cheers

Hi dd77, Suka explaining the Bhagavatam to Parikshit, itself is a questionable issue. It contradicts itself as I have explained in another posting. Some scholars who dislike to think that the Bhagavatam may be interpolated, reason that it was another Parikshit [?]. Anyway I find it surprising that nothing would happen to Suka, while uttering the names Narayana, Maha-Vishnu, Vaasudeva and Krishna. But yet, the name of Radha would cause instant Samadhi. Cheers

Hi Gauracandra, Allow me to re-phrase that. There is no memory in sleep as in deep sleep. In deep sleep there are no dreams. The same neurologists who can verify the process of dreaming, can attest this too. My point still stands, about how can memory live after the brain is dead? Cheers

Hi Bhakta Shakta, Thanks for the pointers. I will keep them in mind. Cheers

Hi Dasha, My knowledge is nothing. I hardly know anything. It takes years of dedicated study to learn the vast amount of Vedic literature and to acquire proficience. Scholarship and devotion are different things. They can exist independent of one another. So a devotee doesn't have to be a scholar and vice-versa. Cheers

Hi Dasha, One Maha-yuga [4 yugas] is only 4.5 million years. The dinosaurs vanished from the earth 65 million years ago. The earliest evidence for the existence of Man is no older than 200,000 years. There is also no evidence of an advanced civilisation having lived before, except in legends. Cheers

Hi Dasha, One Maha-yuga [4 yugas] is only 4.5 million years. The dinosaurs vanished from the earth 65 million years ago. The earliest evidence for the existence of Man is no older than 200,000 years. There is also no evidence of an advanced civilisation having lived before, except in legends. Cheers

Hi Gauracandra, Your points are valid. I will get back to you on the Jesus and Buddha issue soon. Cheers

Hi Animesh, The Hindu concept of time is cyclic. At any given point, we are in one of the 4 yugas, which repeat themselves. The last 10% of this cycle is Kali-yuga, which is what is supposed to be running now. Cheers

Hi Animesh, The Hindu concept of time is cyclic. At any given point, we are in one of the 4 yugas, which repeat themselves. The last 10% of this cycle is Kali-yuga, which is what is supposed to be running now. Cheers

Hi Bhakta Shakta, I must say that I don't see a connection between my statement and your story. Cheers

Itihasa - History Purana - Old, Ancient Why two separate categories in the Shastras to describe the same thing ? Cheers

Hi Jndas, A few observations. 1. Vyasa records the death of Parikshit in the Mahabharata. Which means the Mahabharata was completed after Parikshit's death. 2. Now Parikshit is dead, the Mahabharatha is complete and Vyasa is sitting dejected when Narda approaches him with the idea of composing the Bhagavata. How can this Bhagavata be naratted to Parikshit later? Suka heard the Bhagavata from Vyasa Suta heard it from Suka. The Rishis of Naimika Aranya heard it from Suta. Now all this recorded in the Bhgavatam text. So WHO wrote the final form of the Bhagavatam? If you have the time perhaps you can address these points. Thank you

Hi Dasha, Brain damage destroys memory. There is no memory during sleep. It is obvious that memory is part of the Brain and is accessible only when the Brain is active, that is when the person is awake. If you consider memory as a subtle element which survives destruction and passes on to another body, then the person should be capable of remembering all the past lives. Since that does not happen what is re-incarnating here? --- Several where proven to be fake or wrong, but what about the real ones? Even if only one of them were authentic would be the proof of the reality of reincarnation. --- Yes, but I seriously doubt if there is any such person. --- Many people have related NDE... --- NDE is not the same as after death experience. So we cannot attach importance to that. Besides the white light and the relaxed feeling may be the way the brain dies out. Which is why all the NDEs are similar; just like all heart-attacks are. About eating meat- (Based on a posting that I read before) Man can digest meat [omnivorus] unlike a cow or deer. If God created man and intended him to be vegetarian, then he would have simply made him herbivorous. Why make him omnivorous and then say that he should be herbivorous ? We can rule out the religious angle to Vegetarianism. This concept started with the Buddha and the Jains. That was strictly on humanitarian grounds. One has to be vegetarian simply to avoid slaughter and for health reasons. We don't have to give it any religious overtones. Cheers

Why do we believe that Kali-Yuga is 5000 years old ? The Mahabharata says that it occured during the transition period from the Dwapara Yuga to Kali yuga. So how was this point determined ? 1. The existence of a calender named Kaliyuga-shaka which was first found in Arya Bhatta's records. It claims that Kaliyuga 0 corresponds to 3102 BC. It should be noted that Arya Bhatta lived around 400 ad. Which means there is no known reference to this calendar before that time. That is for almost 3400 years it was unknown. All the older works used other calendars. 2. The Bhagavatam says that learned people consider the death of Krishna as the exact point of the birth of Kali. Based on these points, people reason that Krisna must be 5000 years old and also Kali-yuga. And that is the believed time of the occurence of the war. So this whole dating system is based on that Kaliyuga-calendar which popped up during 400 AD. If that is a false one, then there is no way of knowing the birth point of Kali-yuga. 200,000 years back, perhaps ? Cheers

Why do we believe that Kali-Yuga is 5000 years old ? The Mahabharata says that it occured during the transition period from the Dwapara Yuga to Kali yuga. So how was this point determined ? 1. The existence of a calender named Kaliyuga-shaka which was first found in Arya Bhatta's records. It claims that Kaliyuga 0 corresponds to 3102 BC. It should be noted that Arya Bhatta lived around 400 ad. Which means there is no known reference to this calendar before that time. That is for almost 3400 years it was unknown. All the older works used other calendars. 2. The Bhagavatam says that learned people consider the death of Krishna as the exact point of the birth of Kali. Based on these points, people reason that Krisna must be 5000 years old and also Kali-yuga. And that is the believed time of the occurence of the war. So this whole dating system is based on that Kaliyuga-calendar which popped up during 400 AD. If that is a false one, then there is no way of knowing the birth point of Kali-yuga. 200,000 years back, perhaps ? Cheers

Hi Ajay, If you are from India, you may have watched the Rin soap ads where the other lady is using some other soap which is of a poor grade. That is one kind of marketing where, one puts himself forward by claiming that others are bad. The same logic applies to the schools who call Mayavada as bad. Ironically I find that most of them who say so have no idea why it is bad. They are happy enough parroting their seniors. Cheers

Hello All, --- Sri Radha's name is not mentioned directly in Srimad Bhagavatam because Sri Shuka Muni, being the topmost rasika bhakta, would enter nirvikalpa samadhi by just once hearing the divine name of Radha. --- What can I say ? --- Such a state of unconscious bliss would last for many days. Parikshit maharaj had just seven days before his death, thus Shuka Muni avoided directly uttering the name of Radha, and instead hinted about Her by the word "aradhana". --- Again, what can I say ? --- In other Puranas the descriptions of Radha are given directy, especially in Sri Brahma-vaivarta Purana. ---- I have already explained why, in the earlier postings. --- For those who have a preset conception, it is useless to cite evidence. --- That is true both ways. --- Any text that has the name Radha will be disregarded in favour of one's own opinion. --- Let me correct that. Any text that mentions Radha and is no older than 700 ad is to be diregarded if we are looking at authenticity and dates. ---- One will conclude that such texts are either of recent time periods (without actually having any proof in this regards)... ---- Correction. There has to be proof to show that the book is older than 700 ad. People who claim that it is old are the ones to come up with the proof. I hope that much is clear. --- ...the particular verse will be called an interpolation (again without having proof in this regards either). --- Correction. That is a possibility considered because of the lack of evidence to show that the concept of Radha is earlier than 700 ad. --- For example, if an Upanishad has the name Krishna in it, they conclude that the Upanishad must therefore be a recent text, or that it must be refering to another Krishna whom no one knows about. --- An upanishad containing the name of Krishna is definitely a matter of interest. Because according to the Shastras [accepted by all Vaishnavas], the Sruti was revealed, which means they were in existence before the time of Rama himself. So how can they possibly have a reference to a later person like Krishna? Coming to the point that the Krishna in Chandogya not being Lord Krishna, The Chandoya says that Ghora Angirasa taught Krishna the son of Devaki, all the truths which quenched his thirst for any other knowledge. I must also mention here that I checked this up with other Vaishnava Scholars [not GVs] and they all say this Krishna cannot be the one. The reasons given by them follow, 1. Because Krishna's Guru was Sanidipini and this Ghora Angirasa is not mentioned in any of the stories of Krishna. Which is unlikely because a person who taught Krishna all the basic truths, would surely be worth mentioning. 2. According to the stories of krishna, he was a know-all. So there is no question of him hearing any truths which would quench his thirst to learn anything else. 3. The point that Sruti is believed to have been in existence long before the time of Krishna. Note : There is a different view of this which I will present later, as there is some more Info, that I am waiting to receive. ---- Or to quote another example: "Any book talking about Radha and Krishna's romance is no older than 700 ad." ---- I would be very interested to come across a book that talks about Radha and can be proved to be older than 700 ad. ---- Thus such discussion is trully a waste of time. This is where we get the famous statement "One who knows, knows not. And one who does not know, truly knows." ----- That statement is from the Kena Upanishad and says that Brahman cannot be known. With due respect, I can safely say that it has no relevance here. ---- We find in Srimad Bhagavatam a description of the rasa dance. There it is mentioned that it lasted for the period of one kalpa, which in our calculations would be millions of years. ---- Well, that should explain it. It definitely was not an actual incident during the lifetime of the person of Krishna. Which is what is meant by 'how could a 8 year old indulge in romance'? It is a way of describing the greatness of the Lord by the Author and not an actual, physical occurence. Hope that is clear. ---- The activities of the omnipotent Lord are inconceivable and beyond mundane logic. ---- Which is precisely why one should not/cannot attempt to record them and pass them on to other people. It will invariably be false. --- Such topics cannot be understood by one who tries to judge Krishna in terms of material history. --- May I point out that such things cannot be understood by anyone? Going by your own logic that it is all inconceivable and beyond time and space. --- Those who accept Krishna as an ordinary person will naturally have difficulty in accepting His supernatural activities. ---- Yes, that is true. When we have facts there is no question of accepting or denying anything. This problem has come up, because of lack of evidence. --- Whether it be Krishna's marrying 16,108 wives, or Krishna's lifting of Govardhana hill, neither can be accomodated in terms of material experience. --- Does that mean, you accept that Krishna did not physically lift a mountain ? Which is exactly my point too. --- All of the great bhakti schools in India accept the transcendental existence of Radha and Krishna. --- 1. All the present day schools came after 700 ad. So that is not surprising. 2. When we discuss dates, we are talking about the physical existence of Krishna and Radha or anyone else. Transcendental existence is something that one cannot talk about. It is a matter of faith. --- Many people here refer to earlier Puranas and later Puranas. The concept that the Puranas were written over a period of several hundred years in the recent history has its origin from the British indologists. If we accept such a conclusion, that would mean the Puranas are lies, as they state their origin differently. --- Not necessarily. The Puranas may have been inititated by one person although even that is unlikely. Why would a person want to write 18 huge Puranas which mostly has redundant information? --- According to the Puranas, Sri Vyasa Muni was the author, and he authored the last and most recent Purana over 5,000 years ago. --- Where were these Puranas for 3700 years? ---- Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this regard. I personally accept the statements of the sadhus and the scriptures over the statements of the British indologists. ---- History dates a work by the date of the author. When a date is not available for the author, the next best thing to do is to go by the earliest reference to the work in other sources, and/or to go by the references made to other known sources in the work. --- The indologists had a not so hidden agenda of establishing Christianity as the original religion of the world. --- Yes, but only where there was room for manipulation. The ycould not do so with Budhhism or the Vedic religion. Because of clear-cut evidence. Which was not available in the case of the Puranas. --- Thus all of their writings were an attempt to prove that the Hindu religion was of recent origins. --- Not really. They did accept that the Vedic religion, Buddhism and Jainism was older than their religion. That is an exagerration of our people who were vexed with the Aryan invasion theory of Max Muller. --- In that sense the British were really able to conquer India because they managed to destroy its culture and history. --- Our history still remains as is. Whatever is considered as Mythology can always turn to History with proper evidence. As for the destruction of culture, we are responsible. We had a choice and we opted for the western style. Anyway culture is something that keeps changing with changing times. So it was a change for the better. A more comfortable life-style and better living standards are always better. Otherwise our people would still be living in huts, struggling with farming, fishing, and making pottery. --- The devoted are speaking of a Krishna who is the absolute truth. The non-devoted are speaking of a "Krishna" who was a historical person that lived and died. Unfortunately this two people are quite opposite. Thus there is a break in communication. --- Exactly. There is nothing to talk, discuss or debate about Krishna the absolute truth. That is not something that one can set out to prove or disprove to someone else. it is a matter of belief. But the existence of a person Krishna is a different matter and needs evidence to be really accepted. Because of all the impossible feats attributed to this person. ---- If someone were to ask me to prove that the second "Krishna" existed (one who was born and died like a common man), I cannot do it because I don't believe there was such a person. ---- Well said. Either that or there may have been such a person who was grossly exagerrated. --- In the same way, if I write something super-natural about Krishna, a non-devoted person will think I am attributing it to the second Krishna (the common man who died), and thus it becomes a stupid statement. --- As you yourself said, there is scope for misunderstanding here. But I think that a person can still be devoted to the Supreme Krishna and not believe everything that has been written about the person Krishna. Our people claim that everything about the Puranas is real, factual history. The Indologists claim that it is all mythology. In the absence of evidence one has to lean towards Indology. While the only reason to lean towards the other option is patriotism. It is a simple thing of uncovering evidence. That will clear up this situation. Cheers

Hi Ajay, a. Meditation is good, only when focused at the Jasmine feet of Lord Rama, or else it is useless. b. Meditation is good, only when focused at the Lotus feet of Lord Krishna, or else it is useless. c. Meditation is good, only when focused at the merciful feet of Lord Allah, or else it is useless. d. Meditation is good, only when focused at the loving feet of Jesus Christ, or else it is useless. e. Meditation is good, only when focused at the feet of Lord Shiva, or else it is useless. We have 5 choices here. Which one will you go for? Cheers

Hi Ajay, Such forms of meditation will only result in straining your eyes. The basic question to ask here is, Why do you want to meditate? What do you hope to get out of it? Cheers

Hi Dasha, I accept all your points. In my case, I don't feel that my heart is empty and needs filling up. And I don't understand the concept of re-incarnation. So now I have to wait for that magical thing to happen, when I will suddenly get inspired or develop faith. --- If by chance you get in touch with love of God... --- Like you have said, it has to happen by chance. Cheers