Literal understanding of Bhagavatam

[Guest guest]

 

.........if anything, this thread is precisely about taking a long and hard look and thinking deeply to try to find the spiritual purpose behind the Bhagavat cosmology.

 

This is clearly empiric approach - an approach which is forbidden from the Bhagavat itself. Why? Empiric approach simply means you're trying to understand transcendence with your tiny material brain and material senses. This will never and can never work out.

Why dont you first work in this direction to fullfill your materialistic way of thinking and later come back to the path of bhakti?

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

 

This is why hearing Bhagavatam from Mayavadis, mental speculators, athiests, and fruitive workers is condemned because the lack of bhakti (devotional service) makes the work useless for realizing Krsna. Some mental speculators blame the Sastra for being static or dry rather than seeing that it is their own disqualifications that make the Sastra dry for them. One should never treat the Sastra as dry empiric philosophy or static, but one should take it up in the spirit of devotional service as given by the bona-fide spiritual master. This devotional service makes the transcendental sound DYNAMIC. Therefore, all transcendental works of all acaryas are dynamic as long as one reads them in devotional service. This is also confirmed in the Caitanya-caritamrta:

 

"Similarly, other false devotees think that studying books of the previous acaryas is unadvisable, LIKE STUDYING DRY EMPIRIC PHILOSOPHIES." (CC Adi 2.117)

 

For one who finds transcendental books dry or static, he himself is the problem not the transcendental books because these transcendental books are revealing Lord Krsna who is the Absolute Truth and who is only realized through devotional service:

 

"Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita (18.55), bhaktya mam abhijanati: 'Only by devotional service can I be understood.' One can understand Krsna, the Parabrahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only through devotional service. The Lord never says that one can understand Him by performing mystic yoga or by philosophically speculating. Bhakti is above all such material attempts. Anyabhilasita-sunyam jnana-karmady-anavrtam. Bhakti is uncontaminated, being unalloyed even by jnana or pious activities." (Bhag. 9.9.46)

[Guest guest]

Here is just one example of the discoveries of the ancient Hindu scientists.

 

 

Law of Gravity

The ancient Hindu astronomer Bhaskaracharya, states in the Surya Siddanta dated 400-500 C.E.:

 

"Objects fall on the earth due to a force of attraction by the earth. Therefore, the earth, planets, constellation, moon, and sun are held in orbit due to this force."

 

About 1200 years later Newton rediscovered this phenomenon, calling it the Law of Gravity!

[Guest guest]

 

Law of Gravity

The ancient Hindu astronomer Bhaskaracharya, states in the Surya Siddanta dated 400-500 C.E.:

 

"Objects fall on the earth due to a force of attraction by the earth. Therefore, the earth, planets, constellation, moon, and sun are held in orbit due to this force."

 

About 1200 years later Newton rediscovered this phenomenon, calling it the Law of Gravity!

 

Too many mistakes...

 

1. The author of the Surya Siddhanta is not known. It was certainly not Bhaskara I or Bhaskara II. The text was in existence before the time of Bhaskara I.

 

2. The concept of Gravity was known to man & animal alike from time immemorial.

 

3. The "force of attraction by the earth" is not the reason why earth, planets, constellations, the moon and the sun are in orbit. You do not actually believe this, do you?

 

4. Newton did a lot more than "rediscover" the above statement which is incorrect anyway. Besides, the force of attraction between any two objects was proposed by Greek scientists as early as in 400 BC.

 

Both Varahamihira and Gargi have written that they are grateful to the Mlechchas/Yavanas (read Greeks) for although they are impure, they have given us (desis) the knowledge of astronomy.

[Guest guest]

 

Too many mistakes...

 

1. The author of the Surya Siddhanta is not known. It was certainly not Bhaskara I or Bhaskara II. The text was in existence before the time of Bhaskara I.

 

2. The concept of Gravity was known to man & animal alike from time immemorial.

 

3. The "force of attraction by the earth" is not the reason why earth, planets, constellations, the moon and the sun are in orbit. You do not actually believe this, do you?

 

4. Newton did a lot more than "rediscover" the above statement which is incorrect anyway. Besides, the force of attraction between any two objects was proposed by Greek scientists as early as in 400 BC.

 

Both Varahamihira and Gargi have written that they are grateful to the Mlechchas/Yavanas (read Greeks) for although they are impure, they have given us (desis) the knowledge of astronomy.

 

 

i think it's kinda funny that a book that is supposed to be the best book on astronomical calculations has an author who is unknown.

 

generally, an expert reader can know who the writer of a book is based upon the style and content of a writing.

 

maybe academics cannot know who the author of the book is, but there are probably indian scholars who know based upon the style and content of the book.

 

many times we hear the academic world make claims that certain scholars and experts refute through experience and intution.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

This is clearly empiric approach - an approach which is forbidden from the Bhagavat itself. Why? Empiric approach simply means you're trying to understand transcendence with your tiny material brain and material senses. This will never and can never work out.

Why dont you first work in this direction to fullfill your materialistic way of thinking and later come back to the path of bhakti?

 

Have you ever heard of Vaishnava Siddhanta Mala of Thakura Bhaktivinoda? It is a concise summary of all basic tenets of our philosophy. There Bhaktivinoda writes:

 

"Pratyaksa [direct perception], anumana [logic], and sabda [spiritual sound] are the three types of evidence."

 

people like you want to change our philosophy into some blind fundamentalist cult by denying the role of empiric verification in our process.

 

The spiritual sound vibration (sabda) is uderstood and realized with the aid of direct perception and logic. Without pratyaksa and anumana people would develop a twisted conception of the spiritual sound. It happens all the time. How do you know who is a genuine guru for example? You must examine such a person in the light of shastra with the aid of direct perception and logic. ALL THREE MUST BE THERE for the examination.

[gHari 0]

The sankirtana party was a little whacked out however, since you hear them chant "Hare Hare, Hare Hare". But they were the only colour in the whole flick.

 

To me it represents the reason atheism exists: because just like the rage of the replicant, if we really believe that we die, then we must hate God the creator for making us so temporary. It is easier to believe that there is no God, rather than believe in one we would have to hate so.

[theist 1]

 

The sankirtana party was a little whacked out however, since you hear them chant "Hare Hare, Hare Hare". But they were the only colour in the whole flick.

 

To me it represents the reason atheism exists: because just like the rage of the replicant, if we really believe that we die, then we must hate God the creator for making us so temporary. It is easier to believe that there is no God, rather than believe in one we would have to hate so.

 

Nice insight gHari. More then the script writers saw I think but maybe not.

 

So Roy is our alter false ego. Now I know why I could feel his pain so accutely when watching the film. I understand his rage and despair from within myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's time to rent Blade Runner again.

[stonehearted 0]

 

The sankirtana party was a little whacked out however, since you hear them chant "Hare Hare, Hare Hare". But they were the only colour in the whole flick.

Sankirtan parties in movies will probably always be a little off, unless the director has the foresight to hire a party of devotees as extras for the scenes. I agree that it's too bad Scott didn't do that.

 

 

To me it represents the reason atheism exists: because just like the rage of the replicant, if we really believe that we die, then we must hate God the creator for making us so temporary. It is easier to believe that there is no God, rather than believe in one we would have to hate so.

I agree with theist that this is a good analysis. Roy's meeting with his maker was simply ugly, but we sympathize with him, not Tyrell, despite the cold calculation that results from that hatred.

 

Srila Prabhupada sort of addresses this in his purport to Bg. 4.10.

[gHari 0]

 

 

Srila Prabhupada sort of addresses this in his purport to Bg. 4.10.

That was so very profound and scientific. Prabhupada's compassion gives such incite. I hope some of it rubbed off on me because I feel so helpless when confronted with the general population who can't conceive of me. Thank you for directing me there, Babhru prabhu.

 

It's amazing the way Srila Prabhupada could virtually write the essence on every page, no matter where we open the book.

[Guest guest]

WOW.

 

Nice purport Babhru,

 

thanks for pointing the way to it.

 

ys,

muralidhar

[stonehearted 0]

The verse ain't shabby, either!

[Kulapavana 0]

Dr. W.S. Urquhart, professor of psychology in the Scottish Churches College in 1918-20.

 

seems like he had quite a bit of influence on forming many ideas Srila Prabhupada later expressed to his disciples.

[dasa dasa anu dasa 0]

How can you say that science is a pilgrimage for crows? You're taking Prabhupada's statements way out of context. We should not become closed minded and simply reject all science but rather we should utilize it in Krishna's service. The Vedas contain some of the most advanced science on the planet that exactly parallel modern science only they were written thousands of years ago. If you still are bent on accepting a literal model of the fifth canto not only are you rejecting common sense but you are rejecting the Vedas themselves. The cosmology of the Bhagavatam was never meant as a literal reality. The main purpose is to understand that the material world is complex and there are different ways of describing it that are both correct. I have a very deep respect for Srila Prabhupada. However he is a spiritual master not an astronomer. Everyone has their specific duties and propensities. I wouldn't go to the dentist to get my car fixed. If your propensity is to be scientific like myself, then use it to serve Krishna.