Rahu's head causing eclipses and my faith in scriptures diminishing

[Guest guest]

Our scriptures talk of Rahu's head causing eclipses. Science has proven that when Earth passes through the Moon's shadow, it causes a solar eclipse. When the Moon passes through Earth's shadow, it causes a lunar eclipse.

 

My probelm is that if the scriptures can be wrong about this, what else can they be wrong about? I used to a be a staunch believer in the hindu faith, but when i hear of things like this, my faith is slowly diminishing. I have even started doubting the existence of GOD!

 

How do those with FIRM FAITH in the Lord and the sciptures deal with issues such as these?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

You automatically assume the scriptures are wrong about this matter, when there are countless other possibilities. Just for example, you could just as well assume that it is a figurative description, you could believe that the "head of Rahu" is the earth's shadow, you can think it refers to a higher dimensional description of what occurs at these times, etc. There are so many possibilities as to what the scriptures are speaking about, but you choose the idea that there is a gigantic head floating in space trying to bite into a planet. If you accept scientific views, Why do you even need to look for a fault beyond the idea that there is a giant head floating in space?

 

Rather than get stuck in your inability to understand the codes of the scriptures, try cultivating direct spiritual experience by chanting Krishna's names. Absorb yourself in sadhana and find answers within.

[Guest guest]

 

You automatically assume the scriptures are wrong about this matter, when there are countless other possibilities. Just for example, you could just as well assume that it is a figurative description, you could believe that the "head of Rahu" is the earth's shadow, you can think it refers to a higher dimensional description of what occurs at these times, etc. There are so many possibilities as to what the scriptures are speaking about, but you choose the idea that there is a gigantic head floating in space trying to bite into a planet. If you accept scientific views, Why do you even need to look for a fault beyond the idea that there is a giant head floating in space?

 

Rather than get stuck in your inability to understand the codes of the scriptures, try cultivating direct spiritual experience by chanting Krishna's names. Absorb yourself in sadhana and find answers within.

 

 

I think it is qute clear, at least in this case, what the scriptures are talking about. They talk of the head of Rahu being cut after he steals the nectar from the Devtas and so i dont think there could be any other meaning to this. As a child, this is what my grand parents used to tell me (about eclipses caused by Rahu's head).

 

I don't know. I think you are lucky that you have firm faith and that trivial things such as this does not shake your your faith at all.

[Guest guest]

Srila Sridhara Maharaja gives a wonderful explanation about Rahu in one of his books. Maybe someone here will post it for you..

[Gaea 0]

 

I think it is qute clear, at least in this case, what the scriptures are talking about. They talk of the head of Rahu being cut after he steals the nectar from the Devtas and so i dont think there could be any other meaning to this. As a child, this is what my grand parents used to tell me (about eclipses caused by Rahu's head).

 

I don't know. I think you are lucky that you have firm faith and that trivial things such as this does not shake your your faith at all.

 

When a great poet or playwrite like Shakespeare writes a sentence, we humans make so much of big deal about what the meaning is, what the metaphore is about, etc. etc.... so when GOD speaks the scriptures, how many layers of meaning are there? So it is quite possible that these things are not meant literally but have hidden meanings - thats why you need a spiritual master to guide you thru it.

 

Still not convinced? OK i've seen this Rahu story before but the thought that popped into my head was that if the people of the time (thousands of years ago?) were told by a learned Sage that there is a gigantic hunk of rock circling the Earth and that it gets in the way of an enormous ball of fire that continues to burn for billions of years - what do you think those people would have done? The story would have been so unbelievable! So the explanantion was for the time, place and circumstance. And yet there can still be hidden meanings.

 

And even you are still not convinced... like JNDas says, it's your sadhana that really counts here. For me, i don't care whther its allegorical, literal, old, young or written by little green men - the main thing is that one should develop Love and Devotion for God. Everything else will come naturally. So don't worry & don't doubt, Guestji, just keep smilin

[theist 1]

 

Our scriptures talk of Rahu's head causing eclipses. Science has proven that when Earth passes through the Moon's shadow, it causes a solar eclipse. When the Moon passes through Earth's shadow, it causes a lunar eclipse.

 

My probelm is that if the scriptures can be wrong about this, what else can they be wrong about? I used to a be a staunch believer in the hindu faith, but when i hear of things like this, my faith is slowly diminishing. I have even started doubting the existence of GOD!

 

How do those with FIRM FAITH in the Lord and the sciptures deal with issues such as these?

 

I take many of the stories in the Bhagavata as allegorical or metaphorical. The trick is not get hung up on it and "Take the essence" as Srila Prabhupada advises Krsnadasa in the letter below.

 

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

Letter to: Krsnadasa

—

Vrindaban

7 November, 1972

72-11-07

My Dear Krsnadasa,

Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 30, 1972, and I have noted the contents. It appears that you are again constantly disturbed by the same nonsense doubts. These things are not very important, we may not waste our time with these insignificant questions. If we are seeking to find out some fault, maya will give us all facility to find any small thing and make it very big, that is maya. But such questions as yours: why there is so-called discrepancy between the views of Bhagavat and modern scientists regarding the moon and other planets, and whether Hitler is good or bad man, these are most insignificant matters, and for anyone who is sincerely convinced that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for him these questions do not arise. Our information comes from Vedas, and if we believe Krishna, that

vedaham samatitani

vartamanani carjuna

bhavisyani ca bhutani

mam tu veda na kascana

[bg. 7.26]

that He knows everything, and "vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham [bg. 15.15],'' that Krishna is non-different from Vedas, then these questions do not arise.

But because you have asked me, I am your spiritual master, I must try to answer to your satisfaction. Yes, sometimes in Vedas such things like the asura's decapitated head chasing after Candraloka, sometimes it is explained allegorically. Just like now we are explaining in 4th Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam the story of King Puranjana. Just like the living entity is living within this body, and the body is described there as city with nine gates, the intelligence as the Queen. So there are sometimes allegorical explanations. So there are many things which do not corroborate with the so-called modern science, because they are explained in that way. But where is the guarantee that modern science is also correct? So we are concerned with Krishna Consciousness, and even though there is some difference of opinion between modern science and allegorical explanation in the Bhagavat, we have to take the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam and utilize it for our higher benefit, without bothering about the correctness of the modern science or the allegorical explanation sometimes made in Srimad-Bhagavatam. But this is a fact that in each and every planet there is a predominant deity, as we have got experience in this planet there is a president, so it is not wonderful when the predominating deity fights with another predominating deity of another planet. The modern science takes everything as dead stone. We take it for granted that everything is being manipulated by a person in each and every affair of the cosmology. The modern scientists however could not make any progress in the understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore we do not accept modern science as very perfect. We take Krishna's version:

gam avisya ca bhutani

dharayamy aham ojasa

pusnami causadhih sarvah

somo bhutvah rasatmakah

[bg. 15.13]

"I become the moon,'' and "yac chandramasi yac cagnau,'' (ibid, 12) "I am the splendor of the moon,'' and "jyotisam api taj jyotis,'' [bg. 13.18] "I am the source of light in all luminous objects,'' so no one is able to give us the correct information than Krishna, that you should know.

Regarding Hitler, so Hitler may be good man or bad man, so what does he help to our Krishna Consciousness movement? But it is a fact that much propaganda was made against him, that much I know, and the Britishers are first-class propagandists. And I have heard that his officers did everything without informing him, just like in our ISKCON there are so many false things: "Prabhupada said this, Prabhupada said that.'' But we have nothing to do with Hitler in our Krishna Consciousness. Do not be deviated by such ideas "Jnanam jneyam jnana-gamyam,'' (ibid), Krishna is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, He is the goal of knowledge, and

you mam evam asammudho

janati purusottamam

sa sarva-vid bhajati mam

[bg. XV, 19]

"Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without doubting, is to be understood as the knower of everything, and he engages himself therefore in devotional service''—this is the understanding of advanced devotee, so my best advice to you is to agree to come to this understanding.

Your ever well wisher,

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Also we should consider the fact that Vedic astronomers have been able to calculate the exact moment of eclipse, down to seconds, thousands of years ago. Do you think they had such accurate calculations while simultaneously being fools? They obviously understood the nature of an eclipse perfectly, and texts such as Surya Siddhanta do mention the shadow of the earth.

[Guest guest]

In the West there is a saying that, "If you are in a religion that does not allow you to question it, scrutinize it, pick it apart and examine it, then it is not a very good religion at all."

 

In other words, a good religion, a true religion, a religion that has nothing to fear, no secrets to hide, no posts need to be deleted when speaking the truth: that is where the Absolute Truth lies, and where the Absolute Truth is, that is where the Divine is to be found.

 

There are many branches of Hinduism so if one branch requires you to believe in a head floating in space without question then perhaps you should examine any one of the many other different branches of Hinduism.

 

There was a good thread on this site about Absolute Truth versus Relative Truth; that might give you some perspective as to what to hold close to your heart and what to do pranam to from a distance. Also many educated people

are Hindus; why not see how they reconcile it? You could try the Bhaktivedanta Institute [science/religion research] or www dot

atributetohinduism dor com to learn about the many positive things that are

extant in Hinduism and what intellectuals the world over like about it.

 

If there is not a God, then surely the people who invented Hinduism as a way

to get through the day thought up some mighty fine things: such as ahimsa or non violence and yoga, ayurveda, jyotish, and beautiful music, story-telling, art and architecture. Even if you accept the postulate that there

is not a God, then surely there are many lovely noble ideas in Hinduism that

made your brief sojourn as a grain of dust hurtling through space remarkable.

 

My suggestion is why not examine the other branches of Hindusim and/ or even other religions/ philosophies and see what works for you? Then if you return to Hinduism and your original branch you will be a very good preacher,

because you will understand all of the different other ways of looking at life, and if not a preacher then a very good ambassador or educator or counsellor.

 

See if you can find a way to keep what you like about your branch of Hinduism while not having to think about a giant head floating through space.

Perhaps if you do some research you will discover that the Chinese called the phenomenon of Rahu and Ketu the Dragon's Head and the Dragon's Tail. Then if you read more you will learn that humanistic astrologers call it the North Nodes of the Moon and the South Nodes of the Moon.

 

If you educate yourself about astrology you will discover all of the wonderful ways that you can use this knowledge about Rahu, such as in interpreting your own chart, other's charts, examining your vimsottari dasha periods, etc.

You might even learn about panchagam and do some experiments to see how things go in your life during Rahukala period of time during the day.

 

I have found all of these things to enrich my life immeasureably and there is so much more to learn. Recently I read a science book about black holes and worm holes and it sounded very much like the description from Bhagavatam of the universes emanating from pores of Vishnu as He breathes in and out in His slumber lying on Ananta the Causal Ocean. For me at that moment when I read a purely scientific treatise on the phenomenon of how black holes or collapsed stars morph into worm holes or new universes then I personally came to understand the genius of these Indian stories:

 

Imagine if you will a village without electricity and no TV, so for entertainment everyone sits around a fire and tells stories. The stories have to be such that they will entertain and enliven a person smart enough to become a future theoretical physicist, such as the contemporary Srimati/ Ms. Vandana Shiva, or the equivalent of someone with Downs Syndrome. When you think of the context of oral history in which these stories were shared, then it seems remarkably intelligent that the stories were written in a way

that a very wide audience can appreciate them.

 

For example the cartoon series Spongebob Squarepants is written for 3 year olds but with enough heavy socio-psycho-political content that the Gen X or Baby Boomer baby-sitters will also be amused. So these stories from an ancient oral tradition past are similar to Saturday morning cartoons on Nickelodeon channel and then if you are really interested in something mentioned in Spongenon Squarepants then when you grow up you get a PhD in theoretical physics or become a Bollywood star or a world famous bhajans singer or a housewife know one will even know but raises nice kids.

[Kulapavana 0]

when you see Moon's eclipse and you automaticaly think about the glorious deeds of Lord Vishnu - that is a perfection of consciousness, and a perfection of explanation. At least for the devotees.

 

What is the benefit for a devotee to think about an eclipse in terms of Earth's shadow? That is mechanistic and useless. That is why Bhagavatam explains it like that - Bhagavatam is for devotees, and all explanations are geared to the upliftment of their consciousness. if you want technical knowledge on the eclipses - go to books like Surya siddhanta. but it would be a mistake to explain such things in Bhagavatam terms to non-devotees and materialistic scientists.

 

drink water and think it's taste is Krsna. to a non-devotee water simply tastes like water. HUGE difference in consciousness. but dont try to isolate the Krsna taste out of water in some material fashion. there is no connection.

[Guest guest]

 

What is the benefit for a devotee to think about an eclipse in terms of Earth's shadow? That is mechanistic and useless. That is why Bhagavatam explains it like that - Bhagavatam is for devotees, and all explanations are geared to the upliftment of their consciousness. if you want technical knowledge on the eclipses - go to books like Surya siddhanta.

 

do you then agree that iskcon should not use the bhagavatam as a source to disagree with history like stpehen knapp and others do? because you say it is not meant to provide material facts like distance of the moon and lunar eclipses.

[Nrsinghadev 0]

 

when you see Moon's eclipse and you automaticaly think about the glorious deeds of Lord Vishnu - that is a perfection of consciousness, and a perfection of explanation. At least for the devotees.

 

What is the benefit for a devotee to think about an eclipse in terms of Earth's shadow? That is mechanistic and useless. That is why Bhagavatam explains it like that - Bhagavatam is for devotees, and all explanations are geared to the upliftment of their consciousness. if you want technical knowledge on the eclipses - go to books like Surya siddhanta. but it would be a mistake to explain such things in Bhagavatam terms to non-devotees and materialistic scientists.

 

drink water and think it's taste is Krsna. to a non-devotee water simply tastes like water. HUGE difference in consciousness. but dont try to isolate the Krsna taste out of water in some material fashion. there is no connection.

regardless of guest's query, that is a really beautiful way of explaining it prabhu, when viewed in this way it all makes absolute sense to me, so thank you so much for this one. In the future should someone ask me about this, I shall give them this reply.

 

It's amazing (but not cooincidental) because, as one deprived of even the slightest hint of spiritual vision and fully anchored in his blunt material vision, I was feeling a bit sad about this subject too upon listening to the Prabhupada audiofiles just the other day, where he spoke of this Rahu dark planet and the moon being further away from the sun, that there is only one sun in the entire universe and the stars are merely reflecting that suns light etc. ,when it is clearly not the case in the material sense. I admit I was also feeling down about it because if it's in the Bhagavatam it means it is stated by the Lord Himself and could therefore never be wrong!

And here is someone asking that very question (which had also been bothering me) in advance, and some quality answers are given!

 

It's also good to read that Prabhupada himself admits in that letter that sometimes things in the Bhagavatam are to be taken allegorically rather than the hardline approach of having to take everything literally that some seem to propound. That should clear things up nicely.

 

Actually before the answer by Kulapavana prabhu, my only safeguard to this spiritual dilemma was in line with what J.N. Das prabhu said about the Vedic astronomers having indeed been able to make the most accurate predictions about the movements of the stars, eclipses to come and their unparalleled astrological predictions, so they couldn't be wrong and therefore Vyasadeva couldn't be wrong. A nagging issue has been resolved for me today, so thanks alot.

 

Haribol!

[Gaea 0]

 

do you then agree that iskcon should not use the bhagavatam as a source to disagree with history like stpehen knapp and others do? because you say it is not meant to provide material facts like distance of the moon and lunar eclipses.

 

it's not as black or white as that - there may be some things that are allegorical and others that are indeed fact. But again, the essence as Theist pointed out is the important thing.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

do you then agree that iskcon should not use the bhagavatam as a source to disagree with history like stpehen knapp and others do? because you say it is not meant to provide material facts like distance of the moon and lunar eclipses.

 

Bhagavatam provides a lot of extremely interesting and revealing information about the Universe but you have to be very well versed in this subject to understand it's meaning and limitations.

 

IMO in general devotees should avoid picking a fight with material science unless they really understand both the science and the Vedic shastras. needless to say, that is rare in our movement.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Bhagavatam provides a lot of extremely interesting and revealing information about the Universe but you have to be very well versed in this subject to understand it's meaning and limitations.

 

 

The only limitations we need to understand are our own, because the Bhagavatam is unlimited.

We assign limititation to the unlimited because we expect that everything should fit nicely into our empiric view of the universe.

 

The only limitations with Srimad Bhagavatam is the limitations of small-minded readers who have a every imperfect understanding of the transcendental reality that underlies the universe.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

...I was feeling a bit sad about this subject too upon listening to the Prabhupada audiofiles just the other day, where he spoke of this Rahu dark planet and the moon being further away from the sun, that there is only one sun in the entire universe and the stars are merely reflecting that suns light etc. ,when it is clearly not the case in the material sense.

 

It is actually not that simple... I have a good background in science, and that is also my material profession. I know the limitations of science quite well. The materialistic view of the universe is actually based mostly on huge conjectures and leaps of logic. What they know is mostly just our solar system. The Universe is actually incredibly complex, far more complex than you can imagine. And there are dark things in it, much darker than the subtle realm of Rahu. It is not really a planet in our sense of an astral body - it is a realm of existence for some dark things in the Universe, one of many such realms.

 

when Prabhupada was bashing material scientists he was trying to show us that this materialistic and mechanistic way of thinking is wrong, that it is a dead end in terms of consciousness. it was not about winning a debate with material science on their terms. it was about showing us the limitations of such mechanistic consciousness. sometimes he was not "right" in these debates in the material sense, yet he was right in arguing for a change in consciousness and our attitudes towards everything, knowledge of the world included.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

The only limitations with Srimad Bhagavatam is the limitations of small-minded readers who have a every imperfect understanding of the transcendental reality that underlies the universe.

 

the transcendental reality that underlies the Universe is very subtle. prabhu, with all due respect, Bhagavatam is a very complex book. do you know this verse:

 

 

<CENTER>aham vedmi suko vetti, vyaso vetti na vetti va

bhaktya bhagavatam grahyam, na buddhya na ca tikaya </CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER>

Lord Siva said; "I know the meaning of the Bhagavat and I know that Sukadeva knows it also. But for Vyasadeva he may or may not know it. The Bhagavat can only be known through bhakti, not by mundane intelligence or by reading many commentaries."

 

(This verse may be found in the Madhya-lila, Ch24, Tx313, or in the Gaudiya Kanthahara 2.27)

[Guest guest]

 

it's not as black or white as that - there may be some things that are allegorical and others that are indeed fact. But again, the essence as Theist pointed out is the important thing.

 

It has to be black and white to make sense.

 

Otherwise this is similar to Christian fundamentalism. Statement: "there is nothing in the bible that contradicts science". How? Define everything in the bible as correct, everything in science that contradicts the bible as false and there is nothing in the bible contradicting science.

 

How to define everything in the bible as correct? Anything that can be explained is real and practical. Anything that cannot be explained in practical terms should be treated figuratively. The same approach appears to be taken with the bhagavatam on this thread. When it comes to the moon and history the bhagavatam should be interpreted literally. But when it comes to eclipses, it is not so. How do we know how to interpret?

 

We have already decided the bible or the bhagavatam is wholly correct. Then we proceed to explain all questions away with any type of logic that comes to mind at that moment.

 

If you say you do not fully understand the text by saying it is not black and white how then you do decide everything in the text is correct? What is the degree of confidence? You can take the essence and still admit there is a chance that some portions of the book may be wrong as you do not understand everything in it. as in the case of the rahu question or the distance to the moon. These topics have nothing to do with religion.

[Gaea 0]

 

It has to be black and white to make sense.

 

Otherwise this is similar to Christian fundamentalism. Statement: "there is nothing in the bible that contradicts science". How? Define everything in the bible as correct, everything in science that contradicts the bible as false and there is nothing in the bible contradicting science.

 

How to define everything in the bible as correct? Anything that can be explained is real and practical. Anything that cannot be explained in practical terms should be treated figuratively. The same approach appears to be taken with the bhagavatam on this thread. When it comes to the moon and history the bhagavatam should be interpreted literally. But when it comes to eclipses, it is not so. How do we know how to interpret?

 

We have already decided the bible or the bhagavatam is wholly correct. Then we proceed to explain all questions away with any type of logic that comes to mind at that moment.

 

If you say you do not fully understand the text by saying it is not black and white how then you do decide everything in the text is correct? What is the degree of confidence? You can take the essence and still admit there is a chance that some portions of the book may be wrong as you do not understand everything in it. as in the case of the rahu question or the distance to the moon. These topics have nothing to do with religion.

 

When a novelist writes his piece, there are bits that are factual and bits that are artistic so why is it so difficult to accept?

 

OK, so we have accepted that SB is 100% correct. Does that mean Vyas did no have the right to write allegorically?

 

Your q regarding how to know which bits are "wrong" and "right" - well that's why we need an expert to walk us thru it and even if there are bits that are wrong, or "nothing to do with religion" - what does it matter? Vyas does not waste words - it is there for a purpose, for which we might not ever understand - maybe someone somewhere at some point achieved some enlightenment just because of this word here or that word there - yes, Krsna CAN be that merciful.

 

my view is not to be the man that is over-awed by the delicate wooden chest when it is packed with nice shiny diamonds.

[Guest guest]

 

It has to be black and white to make sense.

 

Otherwise this is similar to Christian fundamentalism.

 

Who says? And why is that necessarily so? You're missing a couple of important things, I think. One is that the Bhagavatam is written as poetry, which is appropriate, considering its subject matter. And that's the second, and essetial, point: that the Bhagavatam's subject is not cosmology, or the taxonomy of species, or any of that. It is love for Radha-Krishna, and nothing else. What's black and white about love?

[Guest guest]

In the common-place books of the Hindu religion in which the r.jo and

tamo-guºa have been described as the ways of religion, we have descriptions of a

local heaven and a local hell; the Heaven as beautiful as anything on earth and

the Hell as ghastly as any picture of evil. Besides this Heaven we have many

more places, where good souls are sent up in the way of promotion! There are

84 divisions of the hell itself, some more dreadful than the one which Milton

has described in his ÒParadise LostÓ . <strong>These are certainly poetical and were

originally created by the rulers of the country in order to check evil deeds of

the ignorant people, who are not able to understand the conclusions of

philosophy.</strong> The religion of the Bh.gavata is free from such a poetry. Indeed, in

some of the chapters we meet with descriptions of these hells and heavens, and

accounts of curious tales, but we have been warned somewhere in the book, not

to accept them as real facts, but as inventions to overawe the wicked and to

improve the simple and the ignorant. The Bh.gavata , certainly tells us a state of

reward and punishment in future according to deeds in our present situation.

All poetic inventions, besides this spiritual fact, have been described as

statements borrowed from other works in the way of preservation of old

traditions in the book which superseded them and put an end to the necessity of

their storage.

[Guest guest]

Bhagavatam's subject is not cosmology, or the taxonomy of species, or any of that. It is love for Radha-Krishna, and nothing else. What's black and white about love?

 

The cosmology portions of the Srimad Bhagavatam are presented within the context of understanding the Lord's Virata Rupa. That is clearly explained in the 5th Canto. Srila Sridhara Maharaja said that every verse has an external meaning as well as an inner, deeper meaning. This is why the guidance of pure devotees is essential in understanding Sastra. It's not all "black and white." You can believe that if you like, but it simply isn't true. There are "layers", as someone aptly put it. The chapters of the Bhagavatam are progressive in nature, ultimately allowing us to understand, in proper context, the transcendental love between Radha and Krsna in the 10th Canto. BTW, are you aware that Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, in speaking the entire Bhagavatam, never once mentions Srimati Radharani by name? Not even once! There is a very good reason for that. (Yet another reason why Sastra should be heard and explained by pure devotees.) But if one were to simply adopt the "black and white" approach as you are doing, one might conclude that Srimati Radharani's love for Sri Krsna is not actually the pure essence of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Try to think outside the box. It's not all black and white. There's also red, yellow, pink, blue, green, mauve, lavender, turquoise, and most likely a host of other colors which our eyes have not yet experienced within this mundane world.

[bolo_hare_krsna 0]

theist....thank you for posting that nectarean letter from srila prabhupada....

 

kulpavana and guruvani prabhus...i also relish your realized explanations....

hare krsna

[Guest guest]

Yes Krsna is BLUE try logicly explaining or proving that to the material visioned scientist.

You are more likely to be converted to atheism than the scientist converting to theism, if proof is the requirement to bring conviction from both pursuations.

 

The only course if you have a little faith is to experience what the previous saints have. This won't nessacarily convince the scientist on their grounds but you will at least be able to rest assured He exists.

While the doubting scientist somewhere in his overactive brain cells may always be wondering about the possibilities of such a reality.

 

Who could believe there are creatures that look like prehistoric dinasaurs in the fluid of your eyes, before the advent of powerful microscopes?

There are whole other worlds existing on that level why not in the bigger picture.

Remember Sridhara Maharaj's statement, "The world is in the mind."

So how expansive is that mind, what can it conceive?

What to speak of the spiritual world.

[Guest guest]

One example of how things aren't always "black and white" was recently given by a devotee in another thread, recounting how Lord Chaitanya explained the Atmarama verse in 61 different ways. To paraphrase Srila Sridhara Maharaja: "Understanding shastra is much like looking into a jewel with many facets. Looking at the jewel from different angles of vision might show a different color to diffferent viewers."

 

Even the Bhagavad Gita presents gradations, such as confidential, more confidential, and most confidential. Sastra can be interpreted in many ways, and this has been demonstrated when one compares Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti's purports to the Bhagavad Gita with that of his disciple, Srila Baladeva Vidyabusana (from whom Srila Prabhupada extracted his own personalized purports.)

 

Hence, each and every verse in Sastra may have multiple interpretations, with all of them being consistent, as well as perfect and complete. Including the verses about Rahu.

 

Interesting, but I found a very nice article on VNN written by Bhabru prabhu relative to this topic. I can't post the entire article here, but here are a few thought-provoking quotes:

 

 

Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura was the first in the Gaudiya lineage to write an entire commentary on the Gita. He gives the idea that verses 8-11 of Chapter 10 can be considered the chatuh-sloki of Bhagavad-gita, the four essential verses that unlock the meaning of the book. In his commentary on verse 9, one of the four essential verses, Chakravarti Thakura says, "Sri Bhagavan’s above statements describe raganuga bhakti only."

 

 

Once, however, when asked what he would translate after the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Srila Prabhupada responded, "Oh, maybe Jiva Gosvami’s Sat-sandarbha or Vedanta-sutra; there are so many; or Bhagavad-gita." A devotee spoke up, "Srila Prabhupada, you’ve already done the Bhagavad-gita." Srila Prabhupada replied, "We did Bhagavad-gita, but there are so many commentaries. Srila Ramanujacharya, Srila Madhvacharya; everyone has given his Gita. We could do many Gitas, not just one." (Incident related by Pradyumna Dasa on a "Memories of Srila Prabhupada" video)

 

 

Srila Prabhupada stresses that verses should not be understood by only one angle of vision: "I am very much stressing nowadays that my students shall increase their reading of my books and try to understand them from different angles of vision. Each sloka can be seen from many, many angles of vision, so become practiced in seeing things like this." (Letter to: Tribhuvanatha, Los Angeles 16 June, 1972).

[Guest guest]

Thankyou eveyone for replying to this post, in particular Gaea, Jahnava Nitai Das and Theist. You guys have rekindled that ever diminshing spark within me and made a falling soul full of energy again.

 

I have just realised how irrelevant my original question was in comparison to the bigger picture. I always knew that the Vedas, bhagvatam etc. were supposed to be read and taught only by learned brahmins and via a guru and my post has just exposed exactly why!

 

What i am going to take away from this post is that to please my beloved ishta dev is my goal. In comparison, i may or may not ever understand little things like what i asked in this post , but if this affects my prem bhakti and sadhana then i should leave such things aside as my limited time and energy should be used on pleasing the Lord and not wasted on trivial matters. Kal ho na ho!

 

I always thought that i would not need a guru due to the mass knowledge on the web and forums like these. But how wrong i was.

 

So my quest continues, onwards and upwards.

 

Jay Shri Swaminarayan

Jay Nar Narayan Dev