shvu

I hate to be the villain, but I felt compelled to point out a few things here. --- The Saints and Sages said, Follow the path that they have followed to realize Atma-Paramatma-Bhagavan and find out for yourself whether or not God can be realized. --- Perhaps Raman was not aware that this is not true. No saint or sage ever said this. They all start with the presumption that there HAS to be a God. The question of an alternate possibility never arises anywhere. There is no specific method laid out and no definite time period for the search here. So how can anyone say after sometime if there is a God or not? If he says there is no God, then his Guru will tell him that he has not been sincere, and he has no proof to say otherwise. Unlike that, with Raman's theory, there is a specific method and a time period to understand the whole thing. After which a student will clearly be in a position to say if it is true or false. If he says it is false, he will also have sufficient proof to validate his position. They are poles apart. It is ridiculous to compare the search for God to scientific proof. And like I have said before, seeing an image of Krishna or Jesus, could very well be hallucination. The idea of God creating humans, and then refusing to show himself to them unless they worship him sounds like a fairy tale [irrespective of whether it is true or not]. Note that no Religion has ever given a convincing reason for why God created man. No religion has done that. They all avoid that issue with concepts like Original Sin, Karma, etc [which sound like stories told to little kids]. May I point out that it has always been man who has been claiming that there is a God? God never came down and showed himself to anyone, ever. From time immemorial, it has always been man saying there is a God, I am his avatar, I am his son, etc. The Christian God is interesting. No one has seen him, but a lot of people in the Bible have heard him. That sounds funny to me. Hallucination again? Someone may ask, so why are all these concepts surviving since such a long time? Because you can NEVER find out if it is false. All their promises are for dead people. All the glory will be available only after death. This being the situation, people are left with a choice of whether to place faith or not. Most people like the idea of leaning on a support, which will provide them with moral strength to get them through the pains of life. That is the reason for so many people willing to believe in a superior power. Never once will they dare to question anything. They stand to lose a lot and so, will never dare to do that. It is basically the greed in us to have more than what we have, to have permanent bliss, immortality, etc that makes us interested in God. If there were no promises, then NO ONE would bother with God. The whole concept of religion is to target this greed in us, to turn us away from material exploits that will result in disappointments owing to their uncertain, volatile nature. Now we are content to wait for the promised bliss that we will find after death. It is definitely a clever solution by the ancients to retain social values [if that is what it is]. The more I read these books, the more it appears that we are all being taken for a ride. Anyone who gets mad on reading this, calm down. This is just another point of view like millions out there, and has no more value than them. Cheers

Dear Ggohil, We are speculating and we don't know. But it seems logical to think that if there was a purpose to our lives, then it would have been clearly made known to all of us. [Every human in ever corner of the world] We see no such purpose. Rightfully the early people who started wondering about the purpose of life, should have first stopped to think, why they felt that Life should be having a purpose at all. They presumed that there must be some purpose and then they set out to find it. Cheers

More about creation: All the evidence uncovered to date, are in favor of the theory of evolution, that Homo Sapiens came out of Apes. Homo Sapiens has been traced back to 100,000 years of existence. Beyond that, while other fossils are available, no human fossils have been found. Cheers

Dear Ggohil, Is there proof that there is no common purpose to life ? In a way, we know for sure that there is no common goal which is being pursued by all People. That way, we can be sure that there is no common purpose to life, that is known to us. Is there proof that we were not created ? There is no proof to say we were created and no proof to say that we were not created. Dear Animesh, By we, I meant all of us. By Creation, I mean creation of Humans at some point of time by a creator. I did not mean the creation of an individual. Cheers

Dear Animesh, We don't know if we were created, in the first place. Cheers

Dear Animesh, All the different purposes that people have in their lives have been put forth by man, based on speculation and his background. We choose one according to our background and interests, say x. We were NOT born to do x, but since we have taken birth, we have decided to do that, and it is optional. Which means, x is not a common purpose of life. There would be a purpose, if we were sure that someone created man. Then it would mean that the creator created man for purpose x. We can never know if we were created or not, which also means that if there is a purpose, we will never know that. For all practical purposes , we can assume that there is no purpose to life. The only common charcterestic found in all forms of life, is to Survive and to Reproduce. Everthing else is speculation [guess work]. Cheers

Hi Anurag, There is no common purpose of life. If there was one, it would have been clearly communicated to man. Any purpose that one has in life is what he or she decides for themselves. Some guy wants to become rich, someobdy else wants to be the President and some others want to realize God. Why do we think that there has to be some purpose to life ? There may not be any. There are so many animals that are born and die. Why should only humans be having a 'Purpose to life' ? As you have said, 'simply to live, struggle, produce, grow old and die' is definitely common to all, although it is not a purpose. Cheers

You cannot realize Him if you have the least bit of attachment in you. A thread with ever so few ragged fibers won't pass through the eye of a needle. - Ramakrishna Paramahamsa It is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. - Jesus Christ When you are not ready to part with your money, how can you even think of enlightenment ? - UG Cheers

Dear Ggohil, I dismiss nothing. Like you said, it may have greater significance that is not apparent. I am not ruling that out at all. But we cannot talk about things which are not obvious. All the talk about a soul, eternal bliss and immortality, is something that you just have to believe. There is no way to know if someone in the past, did find any such thing after death. Even if someone did find any something, how did the ancient people come to know about it? How can anyone talk about what happens after death ? This is where revelation, Avatars and a 'Son of god' step in to make it all convincing. Otherwise all the 'After death' stories would not have lasted. It is quite possible, that religion was created only with the intention of promoting social values. It has worked well. At least, that is the only apparent benefit that we can see, while the other benefits (if any) can never be known. Cheers

Dear Animesh, You bring up an interesting point. Although it is not an intelligent thing to generalise, it appears that we Indians lack the drive and spirit of acheivement that the white man has. Perhaps it is all the vegetarian food . Or maybe it is genetical. They had to climb the mount everest first, they had to write our history for us, they had to do contribute technology to us. It would be a safe statement to say that all the good things in India today have come from the west. It is surprising that when Max Muller and team came up with the Aryan Invasion theory, no one bothered to oppose that. However our people were very enthusiastic about retaining the Sati System, which Raja Ram Mohan Roy was opposing. All the important Indians of his time called him a traitor for going against the great Hindu tradition. Again it was Governor general Bentley who stepped in and put an end to the inhuman Sati system. History shows that Indians have been very weak compared to people from other countries which again brings back the question of Vegetarian food or genetics or both ? Or just a plain attitude problem and a IC probelm of of feeling inferior to the whites ? Interestingly the Aryan Invasion theory although opposed by several recent scholars, has still not been discarded. Even Indian History text books continue to teach Aryan Invasion theory. Perhaps our people are waiting for some British/American scholars to take the initiative and discard the theory as false, lacking the courage to do so themselves. Cheers

Dear Viji, I have pointed out that renouncing in order to get something, is of no use. The above posting is for some people who think that 'I have been devout for such a long time, why doesn't anything happen ?' Nothing will happen, for all the reasons mentioned above. Cheers

Theism is certainly a better choice. For a society to exist in harmony, people have to have values. Like non-violence, kindness, truthfulness, not stealing, etc. Otherwise a society cannot exist. And the idea of a superior power governing us keeps a lot of people in check. Realising this the ancients came up with the idea of giving Religious tones to social values. The said you should be good, peaceful, etc, etc...whatever is important for social life and promised a Heaven, Moksha, bliss AFTER death for such a person. And if someone is sinful, then that person will suffer for that due to his Karma or will go to Hell [semitic]. That was a clever thing to do, because that way people will not run behind the usual pleasures of life, which result in frustration and disappointment most of the time. They will focus on the bliss that they will find after death. So the ultimate motive was to have a harmonious and peaceful society. They did that by bringing in religion, the promise of eternal Bliss, and the fear of negative Karma. With the promise of something that is to happen after death, there is no scope for disappointment. So Theism is always a better option for man. Cheers

Why don't we doubt the existence of Bill Gates ? Because there is no reason to do so. He did not lift mountains with a finger, dance on the head of a snake or measure the whole universe with 3 steps. Nobody doubts the existence of a King Ashoka or a Buddha because they had a normal life, with regular events like regular people. Something which we can understand. The books which describe Krishna also say that he was famous all over the world ? From what we are seeing he was not. Archaeology has no proof of Krishna or a Mahabharata war either. Of course, that does not mean that they could not have happened. But there is always the possibility that it is fiction. If it is foolish to keep all possiblities open, then I wonder what the term would be to describe the westerner who decisively calls it all as false ,and also the Indian who believes it all to be true. The westerner thinks it is impossible, because he has seen nothing like it, and the Indian cannnot imagine thinking that his holy books may be fiction. Simply put, if someone does not think the way we do, then that person is foolish and is a rascal. Some may say that Chinalogy and Indoensiology have no proof of our own existence. But if you check out Brazilology, Romanology, Greekology, etc, you will find in depth proof of our existence. Perhaps now it is clear why we don't question Bill Gates, Africa and Japan, while one should question Amaravathi, Rama and Krishna. Just to clarify, to question someone's existence is not to deny his existence, as some people may have misunderstood. Cheers

Here are two of the best verses from Bhagavatam, --- He on whom I am going to bestow my grace, I slowly deprive him of all his wealth. When his wealth is gone, his friends, kith and kin desert him, making him sink into utmost sorrow and despair. - The Bhagavatam 10.88.8 When his further efforts to gain wealth also fail, thanks to my will, he becomes filled with dispassion and gets associated with my devotees. On such a one I bestow my grace. - The Bhagavatam 10.88.9 --- Most [perhaps all] of us don't want to let go of any of our possessions and our attachments. My people, my Family, my wealth, etc. Although the religious books repeatedly stress on Vairagya [detachment], none of us want to do that. We somehow hope that we can have all this plus God. It is like we want an omelette, but want to have the egg intact too. A simple term for this kind of an attitude is greed. I have observed that several of the devotees have this belief that once they begin to worship God, their material problems will be taken care of by the Lord. Unfortunately it does not work that way and the above verse is in fact against that. With this kind of an attitude, all the effort and time put in, will be of no use. We will live in hope and will die in hope. Like millions have done before us. We don't really want to be free at the cost of giving everything up. So we are content with Pujas, Mantras, reading the Gita, and hoping that we will get detached tomorrow, sometime in the future, but NOT now. When tomorrow comes, it will be postponed to the day after tomorrow. We are just playing games, whether we are ready to admit it or not. It is a kind of escape from the problems of daily life, like watching a movie, but thinking that we are doing something wonderful. A thousand Janmas of such devotion will fetch nothing, and there is no other kind of devotion. So what is one to do ? We can do nothing, except continue to do whatever we are doing, keep chasing that image that we have in our memory and continue to hope. But as long as we cling on to our possessions, one can be sure that NOTHING will happen. And if a person makes a conscious decision to be detached, then he or she is doing that in order to get something else, and is of no use. --- Among thousands of men, on perchance struggles for perfection; even amongst those who struggle, one perchance becomes perfect, and even amongst those who are perfect, one perchance knows me in reality. - The Gita 7.3 --- Cheers

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.

Unfortunately, I am not likely to get there until several more births [if ever]. Which means, I would have forgotten all this.

Hello All, From experience I know that Devotees generally oppose anything that goes against their beliefs. It is not what they wish to read or think about. Most devotees participate in forums to interact with like-minded people and discuss Devotional topics, which happens to be Sat-sangha [Good association]. If someone comes up with opposing ideas, devotees may think that it is the opposite of Sat-sangha to have such discussions. However it is very healthy to do so. It is like a person swimming. If a current tries to pull him down, he will swim faster. Similarly when devotees encounter people who think differently, I have seen that their own belief comes to the surface and becomes more intense. Also in my opinion talking to people who agree with all our views, all the time, can get to be monotonous. So any variation will be refreshing. For all we know, even a person like me may develop devotion in a few hundred births from now, and may even attain Vaikunta in a few more hundred births. [based on the assumption that there is such a thing as reincarnation, Liberation and Vaikunta] So don't worry people. Don't get upset when you encounter people with opposing ideas. Even that has it's positive points. 'Everthing happens for our own good' is a nice attitude to have in life. Cheers

Dear Animesh, The Saraswati dried up at some point. The Rig Veda describes Saraswati as a strong and mighty flowing river which supports several settlements. The Mahabharata talks about the Saraswati as a dying river [drying up in places]. Since then at some point, the Ganga started getting more importance. I will see if I can find verses to support this transition Cheers

To put it in a very simple form, the existence of jndas, Sumeet, ggohil, Bill Gates and Amitabh Bachchan can all be verified. Which means the fact that they existed at some point of time is 100% sure. Which unfortunately is not possible for people whose existence cannot be verified. [Like Rama, Krishna and Jesus] making the probability of having existed as 50%. Cheers

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

Dear Sumeet, One the bright side, they have discovered a sunken city in Western India, where Dwaraka is supposed to have been. However the date of this city is yet to be established. Until then it is still speculation. Last when I read about this discovery, the Professor who was handling this operation ran out of funds, and no one was coming forward to sponsor further excavation. Itihasa and Puranas talk about a lot of places that we know are existing. So Dwaraka's existence is quite possible. What is doubted here, is the characters and their activites. That is what seems unreal. At least when viewed from a modern perspective. Add to that, the fact that we have no proof. Dear Gauracandra, Plato's Atlantis is supposed to have sunk around 9000 bc [the last known ice age]. The Purana date for the sinking of Dwaraka is around 3000 bc. The location described by Plato appears to have been somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean or further west. Plato's writings are the first known source for Atlantis. All the further works and books have been drawn based on Plato's description. Since then, it is surprising how much material people have come up with, which btw happens to be total speculation. Edgar Cayce, the psychic, generated a lot of new interest in Atlantis during mid 20th century by saying that Atlantis would rise again soon, the hall of records, the Atlanteans built the great pyramid, etc. However none of these things have happened yet, and all the evidence being uncovered, points to the currently accepted view that the GP was built by the Old kingdom. Cheers

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

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

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

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