Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Vikram Ramsundar

Members
  • Content Count

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vikram Ramsundar

  1. No takers for this thread? I am stunned by the lack of response. Anyways, I still think it is a good attempt by Professor Kak to unravel this most fundamental of Vaishnava mysteries, the historicity of the Kurukshetra War and its date. Sri Vamsi dasa Babaji Ki Jaya
  2. Thinking of it Prabhu, I can understand your astonishment, but please do not get me wrong; I am not a pure rationalist who s to the view that life originated from matter, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I favour the concept of directed evolution - in other words, Krishna/God is behind the entire mechanism, but based on the information that I have at the moment, I contend that He manifested the different living forms primarily via the method propounded by academe. I do not rule out the possibility that there are additional elements such as those you cite which further complicate the picture. But personally I find it safe not to insist on this given that there is no real evidence in support of it. In the end, what you and I are both agreeable on is the logical assumption that, ultimately, consciousness rather than matter lies at the root of everything in the universe. Hare Krishna
  3. One of the rare instances in which I'm ready to fully back something uttered by you.
  4. I can understand all the opposition to my views, and I equally accept that Darwinism has not been conclusively established. But as I say, in the absence of a more compelling alternative, I prefer to defer to the predominant academic consensus. Theist Prabhu, you are justified in mentioning the startling lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, but can you yourself provide any kind of proof for the existence of off-planet beings, to use your own terminology? If not, then it is pure and simple fantasy to award any serious consideration to such ideas. As for Lowborn, you keep reminding me of my ignorance whilst yourself wallowing in the most fanciful variety of propositions. Prove to me that Nagas and Vaivasvata Manu exist and are watching us - I will then adopt a more enlightened conception of our origins, and be thankful to you for it. Haribol
  5. Well put, Lowborn. I too do not quite accept everything that Brzezinski stands for but he is undoubtedly one of the most intelligent and insightful Gaudiya Vaishnavas alive today by far. His numerous theses on a whole number of Gaudiya-related questions certainly make for wonderful reading. The guy has got much, much grey matter, undeniably. You do not earn a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto without being bright. His track record in serving the devotee community is also commendable. In particular, I think his Gaudiya Grantha Mandira is a generous gift to Krishna bhaktas who wish to delve deeper in Goswami literature and take advantage of the truly vast scriptural legacy that Chaitanya Vaishnavism has the luck to possess. I suppose that those who do not like him cannot do any better than stoop to the usual self-righteous, inelegant, invective-filled name-calling routine of sahajiya, guru-tyagi etc. Let them continue committing vaishnava-aparadha and wiping out the positive effects of their own spiritual practice. The fact is, Jagadanandaji is a traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava in good standing initiated in the Nityananda Parivara of Mahaprabhu's movement, and nothing can change that. Nitai Gaura Radhe Shyam
  6. Thank you for being so gracious. As they say, ignorance is bliss, and I am quite content in my self-created world of darkness. You are right, I am a professional in the accountancy and finance fields, not the natural sciences. Therefore, I find it a reasonable and rational stance to to the dominant academic view on matters pertinent to the workings of nature. If, in future, scientists modify or even discard Darwinian evolution, I'll adjust my position accordingly. You see, I tend to respect authority, and will keep doing so. In any event, what you wrote about Manu and the Nagas as being behind the presence of humans and other forms of life is too ridiculous to even merit being commented upon. I am sure you must be familiar with the works of Ken Miller and Francis Collins. Both are hardcore Darwinists as well as believing Christians. Miller has pioneered some very important recent developments in evolutionary theory and Collins is the Director of the Human Genome Project. They find no conflict between the two - I guess it is all a matter of perspective. For the edification of us all, I'm pasting an interview with Kenneth Miller conducted by ActionBioscience.org a few years back. Please give me your thoughts on it. Haribol evolution: science and belief Science and Religion Interview with Kenneth R. Miller An ActionBioscience.org original interview <TABLE height=228 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=510 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=508 colSpan=2 height=66>articlehighlights Scientific and religious thinking do not conflict. It’s a mistake for religion to reject mainstream science and evolution for several reasons:</TD></TR><TR><TD width=508 colSpan=2 height=76> Science is a naturalistic process, and religious questions are beyond its scope. Evolution and other scientific processes may be part of a supreme being’s goal. Evolutionary biology is a useful theory that produces results every day. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="80%">Science and Religion Interview with Kenneth R. Miller</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%"> Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Religious questions stand outside the scope of science. </TD><TD width="80%"> ActionBioscience.org: Do science and religion rule each other out? Miller: No, I certainly don’t think they do. I think the whole tradition of Western science is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. There are many people in the scientific community, in the United States and around the world, who hold strong religious points of view and do not see their points of view conflicting with working in science or even with the philosophy of science. ActionBioscience.org: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a higher being? Miller: No, it can’t. The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief. </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%"> Evolution may be one means to God’s goals. </TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: How is it possible to believe in the evolution of a complex world and God? Miller: That’s an interesting question. God, for those of us who believe in Him, is the Creator and the Master of the universe. As C. S. Lewis once said, “[God] likes matter. He invented it.” [Mere Christianity, Harper, 2001] It seems to me that an all-powerful Creator, who is behind both the material of the universe and the laws that govern the interactions of that material, would be able to accomplish any goal He wanted to in terms of the process, the architecture, or the ultimate fruition of the universe. Now, what I don’t find useful to speculate about are the exact physical, chemical, or biological processes that could be attributed to God, or identified as God working His magic in the world. I think both Western religious tradition and scripture itself tell us that God is very subtle and He can use many ways to accomplish His ends. </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%"> We must use our responsibility to nature wisely. We are Earth’s stewards. </TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: If a supreme being put evolution into motion, do humans then have a moral responsibility for the care of the planet? Miller: Oh, that’s a very good question. I think the answer to that is certainly “Yes.” Let’s talk about it biologically first. We are the brightest things on the block. We have become the single, most common, large mammal on Earth. We might take that for granted today, but 500 years ago that was not true. We were not the single, most common, large mammal. That means, in terms of ecological impact, that our species is unique. We have the possibility to do more good, to do more damage, or to cause more extinctions than any other organism on this planet. So we have to use our responsibility wisely. From a religious point of view, there is an entire movement within Christian theology, known as the Christian Ecology Movement. It takes very seriously the Biblical admonition that we should be stewards of the Earth. We are Earth’s guardians. The Bible is filled with parables about the wise steward and the foolish steward. The care of Earth, in particular, is an area in which both the religious and scientific sentiments coincide. </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%"> Knowledge is a compelling reason to believe in God. Religions must embrace the pursuit of scientific knowledge. </TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: In your book, Finding Darwin’s God, you write, “in nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.” How is your view different from that of creationists or proponents of intelligent design, who argue against evolution? Miller: I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God. ActionBioscience.org: You also write in the same book, “There is a deeper problem caused by the opponents of evolution, a problem for religion.” Please explain. Miller: When religion places itself in conflict with science, that is, when religion says that we have to reject scientific explanations for religious reasons, it basically means that every time science advances in understanding, religion contracts. If you define religion as being the things that science cannot explain, every time the realm of science expands--and every year we understand a little more about life, the world around us, and the cosmos--those areas become smaller. I think ultimately the rejection of mainstream science, and the rejection of evolution by the creationist movement, is a mistake for religion because it essentially argues that religion is disapproved by the mechanisms and tools of science. That’s a profound theological mistake. </TD></TR><TR><TD width="20%"> Evolution is fundamental to understanding life.</TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: Why does evolution remain a dangerous idea for some of the American public? Miller: I think evolution remains a dangerous idea for two reasons: Many people in the religious community continue to believe that evolution cannot be reconciled with religion. That is just not true. Most people understand that, but not everyone. Evolution concerns something very fundamental. Evolution is controversial for the same reason that you can start a fight by going into a bar and saying something about somebody’s mother. It concerns where we’re from, what our status is as human beings, and how we relate to the rest of life on the Earth. That will always make it a controversial idea, not just in the U.S. but also in many countries around the world. </TD></TR><TR><TD width="20%">Evolution is both a fact and good science.</TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: How should science respond to this public fear of evolution? Miller: Science can respond in three ways: The first is by answering the objections that are frequently raised against evolution. The charge that evolution is not good science--that there are no transitional forms, that the mechanism of evolution doesn’t work, and other similar charges--can easily be answered from scientific literature. The second is by emphasizing the fact that scientific ideas are different from religious ideas and therefore that science in general, and evolution in particular, does not present an obligatory threat to religion. The last way to respond is simply by doing good science. Evolutionary biology is fundamentally a useful theory. It’s a theory whose application and practice in the laboratory every single day yields useful scientific results. The American people are a people of practical results and consequences. When something works, when something is practical, when something earns money, it gets respect in American society, and evolution can do all of those things. </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%"> So-called “alternatives” to evolution are not scientific and lack evidence. </TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: In some regions of the U.S., educators are being encouraged, sometimes forced, by their institution to teach “alternative” ideas to evolution. What is your response to this development? Miller: Disappointment. If the ideas being offered were genuinely scientific alternatives, if they were ideas that had significant support within the scientific community or substantial experimental evidence, it might be interesting to include them in the science classroom. Unfortunately, the ”alternatives” actually being offered are not scientific at all. The insertion of an idea such as young-earth creationism, which requires a rejection of astronomy, physics, and chemistry as well as biology, into the scientific curriculum makes about as much sense as teaching witchcraft in medical school. The other alternative often proposed, so-called “intelligent” design, doesn't even rise to the level of being a scientific hypothesis. It has no explanatory power and approaches scientific problems by nothing more than an appeal to the “designer.” Since such appeals are not testable, they don't amount to science and can only mislead students as to the nature of science and scientific evidence.</TD></TR><TR><TD width="20%"></TD><TD width="80%"> © 2004, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact editor for reprint permission. See reprint policy.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="20%"></TD><TD width="80%"> About the author: Kenneth T. Miller, Ph.D., a Christian and evolutionist, is professor of biology in the Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry at Brown University, in Providence, RI. His research delves into problems of structure and function in biological membranes using a variety of techniques associated with electron microscopy. One of his principal interests is the public understanding of evolution. He has written a number of articles defending the scientific integrity of evolution, answering challenges such as that posed by intelligent design, and has publicly debated anti-evolutionists. He has written a series of high school and college textbooks with Joseph S. Levine, called Biology, the most recent of which is known as the “Dragonfly” book (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2002); he also wrote Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999). Miller was interviewed at the AIBS Symposium "Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation" at the 2004 NABT convention. http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller/ </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  7. Gripping piece from Kak. I prefer to stay non-committal on such controversial issues, and reckon it is fair to say that the accumulation of knowledge is a never-ending process. We can gain a lot through the experiences of others, and I can hope that this post will stimulate an intellectually beneficial exercise as regards the response to it for all interested. Cheers
  8. The Mahabharata War is a critical marker in early Indian history. By popular tradition, the Kali Age started with the death of Krishna, 35 years after the War. The Kali calendar has a beginning of 3102 BC; therefore, it is thought that the Mahabharata War took place in 3137 BC. The first mention of the Kali calendar is by the astronomer Aryabhata in his treatise on astronomy with an internal date of 500 AD. The earliest epigraphical reference is in the 5th century inscription of King Devasena where it is alluded to indirectly, and in the Aihole inscription of 3735 Kali (634 AD). Because of these late references, some scholars have suggested that the Kali calendar was started at a late period with an assumed conjunction at the beginning of the era for convenience of calculations, and, therefore, the Aihole inscription cannot be taken as proof of the date of the War. Modern studies using powerful software that can reconstruct the ancient skies indicate that there was actually an approximate conjunction of the planets on Feb 17, 3102 BC as taken by Aryabhata. This may only be a coincidence. Even if the Kali calendar is as old as its starting date, its connections with the Mahabharata War do not appear to be equally ancient. There are also other traditions related to the War. Some of them are old, some new. Of the competing theories, the most prominent ones, in my view, are: 1. The date of 1924 BC. This is from the Puranic genealogies. 2. The date of around 1000 BC. This is the date popularized by Western Indologists as being most “reasonable” based on archaeological data. Repeated in numerous school texts, it has achieved a certain kind of canonicity. This date was first proposed within the framework of the Aryan invasion theory. Although that theory has been discredited, this date has taken independent life of its own. I shall examine these three different dates while considering the evidence from the Mahabharata, the Puranas, archaeology and astronomy. The Mahabharata Epic and Archaeology Is the Mahabharata epic -- the text of 100,000 verses -- which is a source for the events of the War to be taken as history? The epic itself claims to have been originally just 8,800 verses composed by Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa and called the Jaya. Later, it became 24,000 verses, called the Bharata, when it was recited by Vaishampayana. Finally, it was recited as the 100,000-versed epic (the Mahabharata) by Ugrashravas, the son of Lomaharshana. Thus, the tradition acknowledges that the Mahabharata grew in stages. The core of the story is very ancient and there is astronomical evidence in it related to the Ashvamedha rite that indicates a period before the 3rd millennium BC (see my book The Ashvamedha for details). The details of the final version may very well include episodes that are poetic exaggerations or imagined material. We see such poetic imagination at work by comparing the Ramayanas of Valmiki and Tulasidas. Many of the characters of the Mahabharata are mentioned in the Vedic texts that, on account of being considered sacred, have not suffered interpolations and should thus represent historical persons. Krishna, for example, is mentioned in the Chhandogya Upanishad. Other names occurring elsewhere include Vichitravirya, Shantanu, Dhritarashtra, Janamejaya, and Parikshit. Due to its expansion over several centuries, the Epic includes late material. This means that dating the events of the Epic based on archaeological finds could be misleading. Some scholars have correlated the painted grey ware (PGW) pottery of the period of 1100-900 BC found in Hastinapur (modern Hathipur) to the Kauravas. But there is no basis for such correlation. The Kurukshetra site itself has structures that go back to about 3000 BC. Panini's grammar (c. 400 BC) knows the Mahabharata. Also, the Epic, in its long descriptions of the religions of the day, does not mention Buddhism, so we can be certain that it was substantially complete prior to 400 or 500 BC. The language of the Epic does not always follow Paninian constructions which also suggests that it is prior to 500 BC. Dion Chrysostom, Greek Sophist (40-105 AD) mentions that the Indians possess an Iliad of 100,000 verses. Together with its appendix, the Harivamsha, the Epic does add up to this total. Recent archaeological discoveries indicate that the Sarasvati river dried up around 1900 BC, leading to the collapse of the Harappan civilization that was principally located in the Sarasvati region (accounting for about 70 percent of all the Harappan sites). The Rigveda celebrates the Sarasvati as the greatest river of its day, going from the mountains to the sea (giribhya asamudrat). There are two schools of thought related to the drying up of the Sarasvati river. According to the first one, the Sarasvati ceased to be a seagoing river about 3000 BC, explaining why the 3rd millennium settlements on the banks of the Sarasvati river end in the Bahawalpur region of the Punjab and do not reach the sea; there was a further shrinking of the river in about 1900 BC due to an earthquake that made its two principal tributaries to be captured by the Sindhu and the Ganga river systems. According to the second view, the Sarasvati flowed to the sea until 1900 BC when it dried up. The first view explains the geographical situation related to the Harappan sites more convincingly. Given the understanding of the drying up of Sarasvati, with its preeminent status during the Rigvedic times, it follows that the Rigvedic hymns are generally anterior to 1900 BC. If one accepts the theory that the Sarasvati stopped reaching the sea in 3000 BC, then the Rigvedic hymns are prior to 3000 BC. If the tradition that Vyasa was the arranger of the Vedas is correct, the latter explanation would mean that the Mahabharata War could indeed have occurred in 3137 BC. The Puranic Tradition The Puranas have extensive king-lists together with the years of reign for each king for several parts of the country. The Puranic king lists speak of roughly 100 generations before the Mahabharata War. The Greek historians inform us that the Indians during the time of the Mauryas remembered more than 150 generations of kings spanning over 6,000 years. (We assume that these lists remember the prominent kings only.) These lists come down to the 4th or the 5th century AD and they are quite accurate in their details for the post-Mauryan period for which independent inscriptional evidence is available. One would expect that they would be accurate for the period prior to the Mauryas also. The regnal years are given in the Puranas only for the post-War kings. The king-list for Magadha has the following dynasties in the post-Bharata War period: 1. Brihadrathas (32 kings) 967 years 2. Pradyotas of Avanti (5 kings) 173 years 3. Shishunagas (10 kings) 360 years 4. Nandas (Mahapadma + sons) 100 years 5. Mauryas (9 kings) 137 years 6. Shungas (10 kings) 112 years 7. Kanvas (4 kings) 45 years 8. Andhras (30 kings) 460 years One may question the reliability of the earlier parts of this list since the average span of reign for the pre-Nanda kings is more than twice as much for the post-Nanda ones. The explanation appears to be that it was during the imperial Maurya age that comprehensive king-lists were made and, consequently, only the better-known names of the earlier period were included. The centennial counting system, named after the nakshatras, made certain that the count of the dynastic totals was accurate. During the pre-Nanda period, the list also provides for 24 Aikshavakus, 27 Panchalas, 24 kings of Kashi, 28 Haihayas, 32 Kalingas, 25 Ashmakas, 36 Kurus, 28 Maithilas, and 23 Shurasenas. We know that Chandragupta Maurya started his reign in 324 BC. Therefore, if we were to accept these periods, the dynastic eras for the post-Bharata age will be: 1. Brihadrathas 1924-957 BC 2. Pradyotas 957-784 BC 3. Shishunagas 784-424 BC 4. Nandas 424-324 BC 5. Mauryas 324-187 BC and so on. It is most significant that the Puranic king-lists imply 1924 BC as the epoch of the Mahabharata War. Since this epoch is virtually identical to the rough date of 1900 BC for the catastrophic drying up of the Sarasvati river, it suggests that the two might be linked if they are not the same. The disruption due to the earthquake may have been a contributing factor to the Mahabharata War, or the War could have served as a metaphor for the geological catastrophe. The Earliest Indian Calendar The earliest calendar in India was centennial, with a cycle of 2,700 years. Called the Saptarshi calendar, it is still in use in several parts of India. Its current beginning is taken to be 3076 BC. Notices by the Greek historians Pliny and Arrian suggest that, during the Mauryan times, the calendar used in India began in 6676 BC. It is very likely that this was the Saptarshi calendar with a beginning of 6676 BC. Around 500 CE, a major review of the Indian calendar was attempted. The astronomers Aryabhata, Varahamihira and others used the naksatra references that the Saptarshi were in Magha at the time of the Mahabharata War to determine its epoch. Aryabhata declared the War to have occurred in 3137 BC, and Varahamihira assigned it 2449 BC. This discrepancy arose perhaps from the different assumptions regarding the nakshatras (27 or 28) in the calculations of the two astronomers. It is likely that the fame of the Kaliyuga era with its beginning assigned to 3102 BCE prompted a change in the beginning of the Saptarshi era to about the same time, that is to 3076 BC. The Puranic memory of the Mahabharata war having occurred in 1924 BC may represent the transference of a much earlier event to the cataclysmic event at the end of the Harappan period. The memory of the War in popular imagination may represent the conflation of two different actual events. Coda The date of 1000 BC or so is just not possible because it is at variance with the astronomical facts related to the period. Furthermore, it is at variance with the Puranic genealogies which, we know, are quite accurate in the post-Mauryan period and are likely to have been accurate earlier as well. Then there are various remembered lines of teachers that show up in various texts. Specifically, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad remembers a line of 60 teachers. We don't know how many years should be assigned to each teacher but this line could span substantially more than a thousand years. Given that this Upanishad is about 800 BC in the most conservative reckoning, this long list makes it impossible for the Rigvedic period to end in 1000 BC, as required by the War in that epoch. Recently, astronomical evidence related to the mention of eclipses and the placement of planets in the narrative of the Mahabharata has been examined by several scholars. The date of 3067 BC (35 years after 3102 BC rather than 35 years before it) has provided a nice fit for a large number of data points. But such analysis depends on much subjective interpretation of the stray astronomical references and assumes that the astronomical ideas used in that epoch were the same as in the Classical Surya Siddhanta tradition. Neither can we be sure if the passages used are from the core text or from the much later accretions. Therefore, such an approach will remain highly controversial. This leaves us with the dates of 1924 BC and 3137 BC. I don't think we have evidence at this time to pick one of these two as the more likely one. If one gives credence to the Puranic genealogies, then 1924 BC would be the time for the War; if, on the other hand, we go by the astronomical evidence related to the Vedas and the subsequent literature, then 3137 BC remains a plausible date. If the pre-Nanda Puranic lists are not accurate for the regnal periods, then the War will have occurred a few centuries later than 1924 BC.
  9. Greetings to all, I haven't disappeared after initiating this most interesting of discussions. But I'm very busy and cannot post long analyses right now. I will, however, get back as soon as I can put aside some sufficient time. I knew this was gonna be a sensitive area but did not quite expect the flurry of frenzied replies. Personally, I try to remain as objective, detached and dispassionate as possible when evaluating material, so I do not quite approve of the highly emotional responses of some, but I believe in live and let live. As the old adage goes, to each his own. Lowborn and Muralidhar are evidently the two devotees with the greatest knowledge and experience of the Gaudiya Math by a long, long shot, and I have certainly learned and enriched my mind from their contributions the most. Though I would myself lean towards the arguments put forward by Lowborn more, many of Muralidhar's points without a shadow of a doubt do carry substantial weight. Otherwise, good going so far. Regards
  10. Brilliantly said, Lowborn. I'm disagreeing with you on the Vaivasvata Manu thread, but on this one, you are certainly my mitra. Cheers
  11. I can see your point and partly agree with you, but I don't think either you or I can presume to know better than professionals who spend their entire careers studying the ground in the case of palaeoanthropologists and DNA and genetic evidence in the case of evolutionary biologists. The empirical evidence available SO FAR clearly supports neo-Darwinian evolution. Or will you now say that mainstream scientists are dunces for adhering to this remarkably resilient theory? Why should the evolution of species by natural selection be incompatible with the philosophy of Krishna/Vishnu consciousness? What precludes Darwinism from being God's way to bring forth life forms on earth? I'd be interested to know your take on that. I see no conflict between the two because for me, the creation myths of Brahma, the Manus etc are just that, i.e. myths, nothing more. Regards to you.
  12. This is all egregious mythological speculation. Anatomically modern humans originated in eastern Africa about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, and descend from hominids that are now extinct. The earliest human ancestors arose a few million years earlier, also in the same general area of the African continent. Get a good book on evolution from www.amazon.com and that will answer your question nicely. Hope this little bit helps.
  13. I want to make it clear to everybody that I do not necessarily endorse the contents of Finn Madsen's essay. I came across this article whilst going through the archives of the now defunct Gaudiya Discussions forum. My purpose in posting it here is to foster further (civilised and restrained) debate and discussion, so that all participants can get additional insights into these important past matters from one another's contributions. Towards that end, I can only appeal to you all to comment critically but properly, in a manner that is both academically and socially acceptable. My own views on this topic are subject to change as my knowledge of it increases, and that is basically my approach to everything in life - never to let my ideas become fossilized and redundant. There is ALWAYS something novel to be learned, and to me, this is a universal principle, applicable at any stage, whether conditioned or liberated. Jaya Radhe
  14. Dr. Madsen has provided this summary of Gaudiya Math history, which likely contains information that is new to many. The informants who are quoted here agreed to be interviewed under conditions of anonymity, which explains why they have not been named. You may comment on this article. The Split in the Gaudiya Math - Finn Madsen Until January 1937 - when Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati Thakura (BSST) passed away - the Gaudiya Math, which was the name at that time, consisted of 64 Maths and centres which had been established by means of donated money. BSST’s sannyasins went out on bhikshu tours and sometimes returned with appointments with very rich people who wanted to donate. The most famous donation perhaps was the beautiful Bagbazar Math – marble temple, mansion and hall - which was all donated by one family. In other cases groups of families got together. One family would donate the building site, another the ground floor, a third family would donate the first floor; someone else would donate the painting work and someone else the movables. After donation, the buildings belonged to BSST. He was the owner of all property. The management of the Gaudiya Math was organized as follows. BSST was the undisputed administrative and spiritual leader. Below him in the hierarchical structure was a trustee board with three members. By 1936, they were Jasodanandan Bhagavat Bhusana, Ananta Basudev Parabidya Basu (?) (APBB), and Paramananda Brahmachari. Furthermore there was a general secretary (Kunja Vihari Vidyabhusana, KVV) plus the secretary assistant (B. K. Audolomi). Each member of the board had his own field of responsibility. APBB was in charge of the properties plus he was chief editor for all of Gaudiya Mission’s publishing businesses. This was quite a job since there were so many magazines, books and papers in different languages. ISKCON’s Ravindra Svarupa once described APBB as a man who remembered - i.e., a man who would remember everything he saw and read. He had very high demands on himself as well as on others, and this was the reason why everybody thought of him as quite a tough person. KVV was in charge of all movable property plus he had staff functions. As to his tasks, KVV had contact with many temple devotees daily and was considered less coarse than APBB. KVV was answerable to the acharya and to the three members of the trustee board - not the other way around. Disruption in the Gaudiya Math had taken place since the beginning of the 1930’s and different wings were fighting each other. But from January 1, 1937, when BSST passed away, the disagreements came out in the open. The trouble began when KVV insisted upon continuing as the new acharya in Gaudiya Math. KVV maintained that BSST had appinted him as acharya in verbal instructions. However BSST’s verbal instructions given on December 23, 1936 (eight days before his demise) to the monks assembled in Bagbazar Math did not mention this. The instructions were written down immediately and the wording is rendered in several books. One author writes:<blockquote>On 31st Dec. 1937 [misspelling should be 1936], the day previous to his disappearance Srila Prabhupad [=BSST] called for all his important disciple by his side and advised them to note down the following instructions for their Guiding Principles in future: Form a Governing Body of 10 to 12 persons for management of Mission work but Kunja Babu [=KVV] will manage as long as he lives. Kunja Babu’s sympathy for me brought me in connection with so many persons. His intelligence excelled all. His sympathy for me knows no bounds. I advise you (Kunja Babu) to be courageous and callous as I am callous to all. This should be your guiding principle. I told the other day and again I say Kunja Babu should be respected as long as he lives. Do not quarrel with one another. Vasudeva [=Ananta Basudev Basu-APBB] should engage himself in writing something and he should help the Professor (Nishi Kanta Sanyal) and Sundarananda in this respect.</blockquote>According to APBB, KVV was appointed as leader of mission activities not as math acharya. And also according to APBB, BSST never wanted KVV as acharya simply because he was a grihastha, not a monk. Another reason was that APBB considered KVV to be a subordinate, a secretary, who in his eagerness to advance tried to bypass the board. Since the post was denied KVV, he left the Bagbazar Math and accompanied by 31 of the assembled samnyasins. According to one informant: <blockquote>'The samnyasins thought that if they followed KVV they would have to obey his order and he is very strict...but he was not as strict as this person [APBB].</blockquote>As mentioned APBB had been a tough editor. And he did not deal differently with persons of higher or lower status when they handed in texts too late. Generally, it is agreed that it is improper for a grihastha to scold a samnyasin, but APPB did and so he lost the support of the samnyasins in Kalkota. However he did have some very important samnysasin supporters, but they were at locations where he was not physically present. APPB remained in Bagbazar with the rest of the tyagins still in full control of the property as in BSST’s days and suddenly the samnyasins who had followed KVV were without roof over their heads. KVV could not provide for them. Acccording to one informant the samnyasins who left with KVV had misunderstood his role in the administration. BSST and KVV had always worked close together establishing temples, etc., plus they had a lot of contact because of KVV’s staff function. Furthermore they had a close personal relationship. “Outsiders” could easily get the impression that APBB’s areas of competence were less important. Moreover, the monks were not aware of the division of labour on the legal level. They did not know that KVV’s had jurisdiction over only the movable property and had nothing to do with plots, buildings and cultivated farmland. They simply followed the person they looked upon as being in control because of his close friendship with BSST and because they thought he had administrative authority. But in fact APBB was the only official administrator. In time, with the tensions between the APBB and KVV wings growing, an official partition became unavoidable. The monks and their brahmacharis gathered in the temples where the wing they personally favoured was in majority, and from 1937 to 1942 a number of lengthy lawsuits were initiated. Basically these lawsuits were about ownership to farmland and properties. KVV and individual samnyasins demanded parts of the estate. For example, a samnyasin would say: “This math was donated due to my missionary efforts, so now I want this math or land or some other value.” However, during 1940, APBB applied to Bengali High Court to have the Gaudiya Math as a whole registrated under Societies Registration Act of 1860 with amendments. The essence of this law is that non-profit organizations are benefited with tax exemption. In return for registration the organization must abide with a rule that no single person or group can claim ownership to any properties of the organization. And quite a few Indian religious groups are recorded under this law today. By 1942 APBB’s application was accommodated with retrospective effect to 1940. Seen from an organizational point of view this was a wise move. Because even though someone personally might have provided a temple for the Math through bhiksu, it was now impossible for an individual to claim property on leaving the Gaudiya Math because the property was no longer private. Only monks who wanted to continue operating temples could hope for a share of the properties and even this only through court cases. So by 1942 a row of new cases had started. The chief court case was between the KVV and APBB wings. Altogether it spread over 12 years. But an important compromise was agreed to on January 1948. One informant explained to me that APBB was shocked to see KVV leave the Gaudiya Math after being denied the acharya post, an eventuality for which he had not been prepared at all. Before APBB’s application for registration of the Math to the Calcutta High Court had been acommodated, he left for Vrindavan but soon went on to the Gaudiya Math in Gaya where his wing was in majority. When he received the news from Bagbazar that registration had been approved, he immediately took samnyas from Rupavilasa Brahmachari with the sannyas name Bhakti Prasad Puri Goswami. On the very same day he telegraphed Bagbazar to inform them that now that he was on the correct ashram level he would return as acharya. After the 1948 compromise it took another three years to divide the 66 temples between the two wings. APBB managed to get two thirds of the properties for his side, while KVV had to settle for the remainder. The procedure was that APBB had first choice. One informant explained: <blockquote>When the compromise was established, the other party [APBB] wanted the Bagbazar Math. It was a big math really and it was in Calcutta and it was widely renowned. So they wanted it. KVV said, “Let me have anything.” So he was given Chaitanya Math in Mayapur, but at that time the Chaitanya Math was not so well developed.</blockquote>The two new lines took the names Gaudiya Mission and Sri Chaitanya Math, respectively. <b>Gaudiya Mission</b> At that time the Bagbazar Math was the most desired. And KVV had to settle for Yogapitha and Sri Chaitanya Math in Mayapur. Later, KVV built these places to the destination for pilgrimage we know today. Apparently Puri Goswami (APBB) thought he had now done his service. On March 1, 1951, he ordered the main gate of Bagbazar temple closed, and read aloud from the court documents that the division of property had now been concluded. Then, to everyone’s astonishment, he added that he wanted to retire. He appointed his brother Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaja as his successor. However the post as acharya did not suit Tirtha Maharaja and by 1953 he wanted to stop. A delegation was sent to APBB who had moved to live in Allahabad (but not in Rupa Gaudiya Math since he had left his ashram). The delegation consisted of five persons: Aprema Dasa (?), secretary substitute Baba Bandashik Dasa, B. K. Audolomi Maharaj secretary Rupavilasa Brahmachari who later became Bhagavat Maharaja and acharya from 1982-1993, and Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaja’s son Krishna Prasad Brahmachari. The delegation’s mandate was to request APBB to talk his brother into staying on as acharya in Bagbazar. However, Tirtha Maharaj passed away at the age of 76 before the delegation even reached Allahabad. When this became known APBB decided that B. K. Audolomi Maharaja - one of the very few persons who had taken samnyasa form BSST himself - should be appointed acharya in Baghbazar. He ordered Audolomi Maharaja to change his ochre samnyasa clothes to white ‘paramahamsa’ dress. As paramahamsa, B. K. Audolomi was acharya from 1953 to 1982. Gaudiya Mission today consists of about thirty Maths. Their homepage is HERE. <b>Sri Chaitanya Math</b> Immidiately after the loss of Bagbazar Math, KVV settled with his 31 samnyasins in Vrindavan and Mathura. Since income was scarce, the bhikshu trips got more frequent and several samnyasins left KVV for this reason. One by one they left KVV, but not to return to APBB. Rather they started their own organizations. However KVV did manage to get a big math going in Midnapur from where the samnyasins went on bhikshu tours in Bankura and Bishnupur. In the early 1940’s rooms vere rented in Lansdown, Calcutta, and later on Hazra Road and even later in the still existing Chetla Math. At about this time the financial pressure began to loosen up. But some of the sannyasins started to act as acharyas, and initiated disciples with diksha. One source says:<blockquote>KVV protested against these, saying that a math cannot have so many acharyas. Outraged maharajas left in protest and renounced the math, and individually built maths of their own. They already had good savings so finance was no problem.</blockquote>And this is the reason why there are so many little organisations today that go back to BSST. KVV passed away in 1976 and new disputes broke out. This led to the division of Sri Chaitanya Math into northern (Mayapur/Kolkata) and southern (Madras) branches. KVV’s son and B.K. Sraman took over the southern temples and Bhakti Prajnan Yati Maharaja became acharya for the northern temples. By 1986 they joined forces only to separate again in the mid-nineties. At its height Sri Chaitanya Math reached a number of 35 temples. If you want details about some of the minor groups you might not know I can suggest you to have a look at Swami B. A. Paramadvaita’s book Our Family the Gaudiya Math.
  15. Exactly what makes you think that I am not who I say I am? I am beginning to find all this extremely enthralling, Muralidhar Prabhu. I am not here to destroy anyone's faith, far from it. I just wish for more camaraderie and cooperation between Vaisnavas from different branches of the Gaudiya parampara, and even with devotees of the various other sampradayas. Is that so hard to understand? Are sectarianism and fanaticism preferable to harmonious relations? As soon as I get the time, I shall post Madsen's essay. I sure invite you to deconstruct it like I am confident you will. This will enlighten me as well on the errors which are contained therein. Haribol
  16. Haribol mitras (excluding childish little Guruvani (the pet peeve of most intelligent people on these forums - ha ha ha) who is of course definitely not my mitra, LAUGHING A LOT!), Time to get back on track here. This thread is supposed to be about whether we should take the truth claims presented in sastra seriously. Well, if science manages to prove that there in fact are 8.4 million species, I'll for sure alter my position on this. But for now, I shall simply carry on discarding this kind of scriptural statement. Previously, I also mentioned the preposterous figures mentioned in some places in the Bhagavatam. The sheer logistical impossibilities that a sterile ISKCON-type literalism would necessitate should be in and of itself the answer as to whether these numbers are factual or not. Regarding Krishna-lila, I believe that, in our present condition, it is just not plausible to insist on the historical truth of the events described in the Puranas and Itihasas. It is also unsafe to be obstinate about a strictly Sri Krsna Samhita kind of metaphorical interpretation. I spoke favourably about that work earlier on, and I still recommend it to any aspirant Vaishnava, but as some accurately guessed (thank you Theist), I was not stating that that was the complete picture. The best practice, in my opinion, is to latch on to anything which is conducive to one's advancement in sadhana-bhakti, and let others do likewise. Each individual practitioner has a specific psyche, and each ought to act accordingly without however being dogmatic about one's views. For the ones amongst us with slightly higher IQs, it is a totally comprehensible standpoint to want to evaluate certain sastric data in light of modern scholarly consensus. And notwithstanding bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa and karanapatava, I, for one, respect the authority of the prevailing paradigms of mainstream academia, not blindly of course, but I consider that an unreflective rejection of science and contemporary scholarship is intellectually disreputable. I think that most/all would agree with me on this. I suppose it was my bringing Srila Bhaktivinoda into the picture here that got all this discussion going about Lalita Prasada and non-Sarasvata followers of the Thakura (of which there are many tens of thousands in Bengal, for the record). I am saddened and disturbed when I see perfectly fine and gentlemanly Vaishnavas letting themselves slide into abject partisanship and adopt the same old routine Us Versus Them attitude. I consider myself to be the great-grand disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati but I would never dare say one bad word about Srila Lalita Prasada. Whatever difference he had with his brother is between them, and NOBODY here is qualified to step in and take sides. I am not advocating that everyone follows my own example, i.e. having a foot in each camp, but we are all babies compared to the sons of Bhaktivinoda, and conventional wisdom would dictate that we let bygones be bygones. As far as Bipin Bihari Goswami is concerned, it is an ineluctable fact that Bhaktivinoda Thakura held him in high regard and wrote appreciatively of him, and that as well way after they had their so-called falling-out. I think it is time that even whilst remaining committed and loyal to our respective Gaudiya sources, we ALL start thinking outside the box a little bit, and develop a more balanced and nuanced view of the history of this sampradaya. A closer analysis of all the available evidence would suggest that the indoctrination that each one here has had experience of is seriously erroneous and wrong in many instances. I myself cannot understand why devotees must fight with one another over whether one guru is better than another, who represents Mahaprabhu more faithfully, and so forth. This smacks of nothing more than a lower-than-kanistha state of mind. There is both good and bad in traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism, there is both good and bad in Gaudiya Matha and there is both good and bad in ISKCON. This is the actual truth, and I shall continue to oppose and confront the ugly head of society-consciousness wherever it rears itself for as long as I live. This thread is not appropriate for this debate, but I will start another one soon with a very interesting essay by Finn Madsen on the break-up of the Gaudiya Matha in the aftermath of Bhaktisiddhanta's death and its subsequent evolution into the tens of various missions we see today. Mark my words, quite a few bubbles will be burst by that excellent academic write-up. So stay put. Regards
  17. Thank you for your sympathetic and accurate reading of my words, Theist Prabhu. This is exactly what I in fact meant. Sri Krsna Samhita is useful in the sense that it purveys one a means of realising the Bhagavatam's beautiful message of bhakti even whilst staying true to the principle of rationality. Any religious pursuit is, to some extent, irrational, because God and the atma cannot be empirically proven to exist. However, that does not mean that we abandon reason and allow ourselves to fall prey to mythological thinking at its worst. Guru and sastra are to be respected always, but Guru is human and thus fallible, and sastra is relative, not absolute. Both only serve as guides to lead a sadhaka to his/her sadhya, not as authorities in themselves who are not prone to sometimes make biased pronouncements. Perspective derived from careful reasoning is just as valid, if not more so, than scripture. Radhe Radhe
  18. Once more, Guruvani, you write about things which you do not know as if you do (typical of you anyways). You mentioned Mahanidhi Swami and Pundarika Vidyanidhi as good ISKCON Vaisnavas, which is absolutely correct. In addition to them, I can lengthen this list for you considerably: Indradyumna Maharaja, Jayadvaita Maharaja, Bhumipati dasa, Isvara dasa, Jaya Vijaya dasa, Deena Bandhu dasa, Sadaputa dasa, Maha-Visnu dasa (a Mauritian devotee) to name just a few. Regarding Mahanidhi, though, he would be even better if he could refrain from cribbing the translations of Gadadhara Prana dasa and pass them as his own work. Surprised? Or do you not know what I am referring to? Start doing some serious homework, man! But I concur with you that he is otherwise a true bhakta, and has a nice personality to go with, unlike you of course. The thing that I like the most about Mahanidhi Maharaja is his laudably non-sectarian outlook on Krsna consciousness, and the friendly relations he strives to maintain with the non-Iskcon Vrajavasis, especially since he lives in Vrndavana most of the time. He even on occasion goes to pay his respects to Pandita Sri Ananta dasa Babaji Maharaja, the current occupier of the gaddi of the Gaudiya prayojana-acarya, Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvamipada. Or do you ignore even this? Suggested reading for you - Vraja Journal. I could, however, give you a significantly longer list than the one above, of guru-bhogis and pretenders who are committed ISKCONites. I have no inclination to write their names here but I am sure you know at least some of the people I have in mind, given that you are yourself an armchair Yankee GBC critic who has obviously never set foot in Deva-bhumi Bharata-varsa. In any case, I am a grhasti (you may choose to call me a grhamedhi like you have before, but I suppose that you are aware of what I think of infantile schmucks who resort to ad hominem attacks at every turn). Is being a householder a bad thing? HDG Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada himself sanctified many dozens of marriages between his disciples, both Indian and Western. Maybe he was wrong, if we go by your gormless reasoning. He should just have told everybody to remain celibates forever, and that would have been it! And lastly, for your information, I was a congregational member of ISKCON for over 10 years before these guys put me off irreversibly due to the standard discriminating mentality and mercantile, even mercenary, approach to preaching that most of them adhere to. So what you said in response to my earlier piece is complete poppycock, in short. The post of mine which got you riled up so much that you wasted almost an entire post of yours criticising me personally, rather than trying to defeat my arguments, was and remains my basic take on contemporary Vaisnava association. I should also point out that you conveniently sidestepped the last sentence in which I said to Miraji that for those who get what they need from ISKCON, that is perfectly okay. In the end, I cannot judge you too harshly. You draw practically everything you know about Lord Caitanya's mission from ISKCON, unlike my own infinitely more eclectic proclivity. I am not so ignorant and closed-minded as to think that God only reveals Himself to a select few individuals belonging to a 40-year-old organisation, when nearly two billion years have elapsed in the present kalpa according to orthodox Vedic chronology, and Mahaprabhu Himself appeared over 500 years ago. See my sense of perspective? And concerning propagating Gaudiya Vaisnavism, well over 50% of Hare Krsna activities outside of India are now authored by the various Gaudiya Mathas and traditional Parivara lines. You don't trust what I say, eh? Just carry out some research of your own, and you WILL see that this can be statistically confirmed. I abstain from making statements that cannot be backed by evidence, Guruvani. As a London-educated qualified finance professional, that kind of academic rigor and honesty is embedded in me. But I guess it is really too much asking to demand a comparable level of intellectualism of you. Know that this is VERILY the last time I am taking the time to reply to you on any subject matter whatsoever. You can insult me behind my back, call my credentials into question, and engage in all types of reprehensible behaviour; I shall simply not bother to as much as read anything that you type henceforth. Go about wasting your time and energy, it will be nothing more than water on a duck's back as far as I am concerned. Ganga-maiya Ki Jaya Jaya Radhe
  19. I repeat this last sentence, in case it was overlooked. I suppose Guruvani is quite the opposite of me, and has a tremendous history of service - HE HE HE HE. Who would want to take any sort of advice whatsoever from a semi-senile, frustrated wannabe mleccha? Just go back to your roots, i.e hamburgers and slurpees, pal.
  20. Well, if you presume to be more knowledgeable than the Seventh Goswami himself, a fallen soul like me has no chance of getting you to use your brain and think rationally. By the way, the Bhagavata is a 1300-year-old book which was gradually developed in South India, and borrows ideas from a number of different sources, some genuinely authentic and old, others less so. The poets who wrote it had no scientific knowledge like we do now, nor did they find it necessary to compose an empirically verifiable work on matters pertaining to natural processes. This explains the multiple cases of hyperbolic use one can see in that work. One more thing - how did those 30 trillion bodyguards live, sleep, pass stool etc? Did their poop evaporate in thin air? How many toilets were required for them? What about their wives and children? Maybe they all lived in another dimension! If you can provide me with satisfactory answers to these questions derived from solid reasoning, I'll rest my case. Radhe Radhe
  21. You're the one who has the cheek to disregard the siksa of Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. I prefer to stay connected to the main trunk of the parampara, instead of deviate to the point of fitting the description of a fringie quite aptly. Read the Sri Krsna-samhita. Krsna consciousness is not synonymous nor dependent on mythology and hyperbole.
  22. [quoteJai Shri Krishna! Thanks for the link Guruvani. Just like you understand what Vyasadeva felt that way.. there are other lineages who feel the same way about their scriptures. There was a time when Lord Rama instructed Goswami Tulasidas to write Ramcharitmanas which is fully authoritative. This does not cancels out shri Valmiki Ramayana. Similarly Bhagwatam doesn't cancels out other scriptures. The whole agenda of Bhagwatam is the only ... or We HKs are the only...etc. reflects a shallow ego trip!! I've interacted with very senior Gaudiyas, and their mind sets have never reflected anything similar to this! It was a pleasure to feel the love n bhakti vibes. It will be a pleasure to see you respecting others and their faith. Love, Namah Shivaya Yogkriya.]
  23. Dear Miraji, Just pray to your ista-deva with as pure and sincere a heart as possible, and humbly ask for guidance from within. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is a native Vedantic tradition that really does not need a corporate-type set-up for its continued existence and propagation. Today's ISKCON is a total no-no for most thinking persons who wish for sweet, genuine Vaisnava association. However, there are many offshoots from it (the ashrams of Tripurari Maharaja, Narasingha Maharaja etc) that do make for much better company. But if you find what you are looking for within ISKCON, there is no problem with that as well. Otherwise, if you wish to consider my own two-paisa to be worth anything at all, I would favour going to one of the smaller Gaudiya Mathas, such as the groups led by Sripada Bhaktibibuddha Bodhayan Maharaja, Sripada Gopananda Bon Maharaja or Srila Bhaktikumuda Santa Maharaja. Just my personal preference - small societies that focus primarily on sadhana-bhakti and personal spiritual upliftment rather than raising funds, selling books, building temples or conducting wide-scale proselytizing. Having said this, there are undoubtedly larger Mathas which certainly have immense good to offer; here I'm referring to the descendent disciples of Srila Bhaktiraksaka Sridhara Maharaja and Srila Bhaktikevala Audulomi Maharaja PLUS the devotee organisations of living senior Sarasvata Vaisnavas such as Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Ballabha Tirtha Maharaja, Sripada Bhakti Aloka Paramadvaiti Maharaja and Srila Bhaktivaibhava Puri Maharaja. Last but not least, do not forget the source of both the Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON, i.e. traditional Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Do not let yourself be in any way influenced by the foolish name-calling and denigrating (sahajiyas, imitators and other such trash) that is indulged in by many modern pseudo-Gaudiyas who have the gall to presume that they know better than people born and bred as devotees of Krsna and Mahaprabhu, and who literally eat Krsna, drink Krsna and sleep Krsna. Countless different places exist in the Vrndavana area, in Bengal and also in Orissa where you can obtain the extraordinary association of these traditional Caitanya Vaisnavas. For more information, you can log on to www.gaudiya.com, www.madangopal.com, www.madrasibaba.org, www.radhashyamsundar.com, and www.gambhira.com to name just a few. If you are interested, you can find many other links to orthodox Gaudiya lineages on these sites. Finally, I wish you all the very best in your journey to transcendence. Radhe Radhe
  24. I too totally agree with you, Prabhu. There is an urgent need in some quarters of modern Gaudiya Vaisnavism to eliminate major psychological barriers such as these, and follow a more rational approach to Vedanta and Bhakti-marga. The Srimad Bhagavatam is a scripture which exists for the spiritual edification of us all. Being predicated on historical or quasi-historical events which take place in a Puranic setting, usage is made of the usual mythological and cosmological material which is typical of the entire corpus of similar literatures. As Srila Prabhupada himself says, Canto 10 is the summum bonum of the Bhagavatam. The preceding content builds up to that in a more or less orderly and logical sequence, but with the express aim of later getting drowned in the transcendental whirlpool of Krsna-lila. In other words, the pastimes of Bhagavan Hari are the essence of our favourite, spotless Purana, and that is where most attention ought to be focused. Things such as the numbers of bodyguards or species are, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant to Hari-katha, and can be safely dismissed from the picture. This is my own two-paisa worth on this topic. Radhe Radhe
  25. By the way, I ought to correct my own previous statement regarding the numbers found in sastra on the question of Ugrasena's bodyguards. It is not 4 billion, but 30 trillion rather! WOW! Any takers for a literal acceptance of that? I opt out right away - it's okay to take some flak from the fundamentalists, I suppose. At least, I'm not running around oxygen-starved like some. For me, harmony IS possible between traditional spirituality and modern academic scholarship, provided everyone opts to act reasonably and refrains from assailing the character and integrity of proponents of viewpoints slightly different from those which they have been indoctrinated with. THIS is the position which the two greatest Gaudiya Vaisnava reformers of recent times, Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, had embraced. Since I draw my knowledge of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Krsna from the Bhaktivinoda Parivara, I consider following in the footsteps of these two great souls the natural and right route to adopt. After all, the Thakura did not write Sri Krsna-samhita for nothing. He did intend his parampara descendents to read his literary legacy, and apply the teachings contained therein. Shukavak Dasa's excellent book "Hindu Encounter With Modernity" is also a very laudable work on this whole subject matter, and a truly recommendable one. Choosing a mystical path does not mean that we give up functioning rationally and succumb to all sorts of prejudices, even those that a thoughtful but inexperienced ten or twelve-year-old can see for being what they are, namely fanciful exaggerations. Eventually, divine revelation comes down to perfected practitioners/sadhana-siddhas and THAT is a transcendental feeling filled with mystery and wonder. But until then, progressing on the path of Krsna-bhakti should be the priority. If believing in the literalism of the Bhagavata helps an individual devotee inch forward toward that goal, good for him or her. But, at the very least, a kanistha dogmatism to the effect that anyone who doesn't to the same interpretation/s is lowly and fallen needs to be avoided at all costs. Radhe Radhe
×
×
  • Create New...