8,000,400 different species in the universe?

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Seems like it is precisely Bhaktivinoda who reduced shastra to fairy tales with a moral.

I didn't directly address this point in my earlier response.

 

It's not clear exactly how you came to this conclusion, but, to show correlation between the scripture (shastra) and science is not to devalue the shastra.

 

As pointed out by Bhaktivinoda in a quote recently posted on these forums, our goal lies in the realm of Chit (consciousness). This realm is beyond time and material space, so, when we project that world into our "two dimensional" (to use a film-projection analogy) realm of words, thoughts and time, by necessity the representation will not be full.

 

What am I trying to say? While the shastra no doubt has some literal truth, it cannot contain *all* truth. It is a doorway to the realm of limitless consciousness.

 

What is language, after all, but a model of reality? A word represents a "real" thing (or a "real" concept) in an abstract fashion. As our models become more refined over time (through science, or what have you), why should those who are divinely inspired not use these better models to describe the Ultimate Reality in a way that is more comprehensible to the educated person of his or her day?

 

In a sense, it *is* valuable to accept Shastra literally (under the guidance of a Vaishnava), if only to try to pry our minds free of it's death-grip on the illusion we accept, in our every day lives, as "reality".

 

On the other hand, the Vaishnava, who is being carried by the same transcendent current that has carried the various Vyasdevas, can harmonize the shastra and that small portion of current science which is not complete bull-pucky.

[gHari 0]

Melbourne 1975:

 

PrabhupAda: Because the whole world was merged into water. So evolution takes place from aquatics, fish. Then, as the water dries up, there was vegetation, plants. Plants, creepers, trees. Then, gradually, the insects, moths, reptiles, serpents, they come out. And then, from insects, the birds, varieties of birds, and aquatics, 900,000. And eleven hundred thousand, 1,100,000 species of these insects and reptiles. And one million varieties of birds. And then beasts, animals, four-legged, there are three million varieties. So all together this is eight million. Huh? No? [gHari's note: in another conversation Srila Prabhupada mentions "Then trees, plants, two millions, twenty lakhs" thus totalling 8,000,000 non-human forms]

 

 

Australian devotee: 400,000.

 

 

PrabhupAda: No, total human being, 400,000 species. Altogether, 8,400,000 species of living entities. So these are coming, evolution, by the laws of nature. You cannot stop it. The laws of nature, you cannot interfere. In this way we come to the human form of body, and especially civilized human being. Supposedly, it is the Aryans. The Aryan family, they are the topmost civilized group amongst the living entities. Now, in this life one has to enquire about himself that what is the difference between me and the dog? Why I am claiming a better position than the dog? What is the difference? The difference is that a human being, if he endeavors, he can understand his real constitutional position and he can understand God also. God. Therefore in the human society, civilized human society, there is some sort of religious system. It does not matter whether it is Hindu religion, Muslim religion, Christian religion, or Buddha religion. There is some religion in the civilized human society.

 

 

Journalist: Civil what, sir?

 

 

PrabhupAda: In the civilized human society there is some system of religion. So that system of religion means try to understand God. Religion means the law given by God. So civilized human beings, they are trying to understand God and His laws. That is called religion. Now the difference between dog and me is that I can try to understand what is God, what is my position; the dog cannot understand. Dog means the animals. They cannot understand. So that is the difference between a human being and a dog. If we give up religion or the method to understand God and our relationship with Him, then we will remain dog. Then we remain dog. We are not human being. So at the present moment the so-called human society, civilized human society, is giving up the conception of God, understanding God, especially the Communist party. They are openly declaring that "We don't believe in God." But those who are not Communists, they, lip sympathy, they say that "Yes, we believe in God," but actually they do not believe.

 

 

So practically the entire human society is now becoming godless. That is very dangerous position. And we have already come to that dangerous position. There are so many problems, and recently we have heard that New York City, the most important city in the world, they are in a problem, that they cannot keep the city very nicely maintained and clean, and they asked for help, some millions of dollars, and the federal government has refused. In this way the godless society will have to meet so many problems of life, and if they want solution of all these problems, they must take to God consciousness or KRSNa consciousness. So that is our sum and substance of the movement, KRSNa consciousness, the International Society for KRSNa Consciousness. So we are trying to... It is very simple method. Anyone can accept it by chanting and dancing and eating. And if one does not like this method--he wants to understand the philosophy--we have got fifty books of four hundred pages, you can see all these books.

 

 

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.24.29:

 

<center>

sva-dharma-niSThaH zata-janmabhiH pumAn

viriJcatAm eti tataH paraM hi mAm

avyAkRtaM bhAgavato 'tha vaiSNavaM

padaM yathAhaM vibudhAH kalAtyaye

</center>

sva-dharma-niSThaH--one who is situated in his own dharma, or occupation; zata-janmabhiH--for one hundred births; pumAn--a living entity; viriJcatAm--the post of Lord BrahmA; eti--gets; tataH--thereafter; param--above; hi--certainly; mAm--attains me; avyAkRtam--without deviation; bhAgavataH--unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead; atha--therefore; vaiSNavam--a pure devotee of the Lord; padam--post; yathA--as; aham--I; vibudhAH--demigods; kalA-atyaye--after the annihilation of the material world.

A person who executes his occupational duty properly for one hundred births becomes qualified to occupy the post of BrahmA, and if he becomes more qualified, he can approach Lord Siva. A person who is directly surrendered to Lord KRSNa, or ViSNu, in unalloyed devotional service is immediately promoted to the spiritual planets. Lord Siva and other demigods attain these planets after the destruction of this material world.

 

PURPORT

 

This verse gives an idea of the highest perfection of the evolutionary process. As described by the VaiSNava poet Jayadeva GosvAmI, pralaya-payodhi jale dhRtavAn asi vedam **. Let us begin tracing the evolutionary process from the point of devastation (pralaya), when the whole universe is filled with water. At that time there are many fishes and other aquatics, and from these aquatics evolve creepers, trees, etc. From these, insects and reptiles evolve, and from them birds, beasts and then human beings and finally civilized human beings. Now, the civilized human being is at a junction where he can make further evolutionary progress in spiritual life. Here it is stated (sva-dharma-niSThaH) that when a living entity comes to a civilized form of life, there must be sva-dharma, social divisions according to one's work and qualifications. This is indicated in Bhagavad-gItA (4.13):

 

 

cAtur-varNyaM mayA sRSTaM

 

guNa-karma-vibhAgazaH

 

 

"According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me."

 

 

In civilized human society there must be the divisions of brAhmaNa, kSatriya, vaizya and zUdra, and everyone must properly execute his occupational duty in accordance with his division. Here it is described (svadharma-niSThaH) that it does not matter whether one is a brAhmaNa, kSatriya, vaizya or zUdra. If one sticks to his position and properly executes his particular duty, he is considered a civilized human being. Otherwise he is no better than an animal. It is also mentioned herein that whoever executes his occupational duty (sva-dharma) for one hundred births (for instance, if a brAhmaNa continues to act as a brAhmaNa) becomes eligible for promotion to Brahmaloka, the planet where Lord BrahmA lives. There is also a planet called Sivaloka, or SadAzivaloka, which is situated in a marginal position between the spiritual and material worlds. If, after being situated in Brahmaloka, one becomes more qualified, he is promoted to SadAzivaloka. Similarly, when one becomes even more qualified, he can attain the VaikuNThalokas. The VaikuNThalokas are targets for everyone, even the demigods, and they can be attained by a devotee who has no desire for material benefit. As indicated in Bhagavad-gItA (8.16), one does not escape material miseries even if he is elevated to Brahmaloka (Abrahma-bhuvanAl lokAH punar Avartino 'rjuna). Similarly, one is not very safe even if he is promoted to Sivaloka, because the planet of Sivaloka is marginal. However, if one attains VaikuNThaloka, he attains the highest perfection of life and the end of the evolutionary process (mAm upetya tu kaunteya punar janma na vidyate). In other words, it is confirmed herein that a person in human society who has developed consciousness must take to KRSNa consciousness in order to be promoted to VaikuNThaloka or KRSNaloka immediately after leaving the body. TyaktvA dehaM punar janma naiti mAm eti so 'rjuna (Bg. 4.9). A devotee who is fully in KRSNa consciousness, who is not attracted by any other loka, or planet, including Brahmaloka and Sivaloka, is immediately transferred to KRSNaloka (mAm eti). That is the highest perfection of life and the perfection of the evolutionary process.

 

 

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Perhaps Bhaktivinoda was born in a lower caste shakta family so that he might grow up without pre-conceived notions of what Vaishnavism should be. It is often hard to be a reformer if you absorb a particular flavor of a tradition in your childhood.

 

You should read his autobiography. It is very enlivening. His honesty and sincerity are very vivid in that account.

 

Valuable insights, Prabhu. I pray for the inspiration to learn more about that dear and great person!!

[Guest guest]

 

Well, there is only a problem with "equal to if not better than" if we see the writings of Bhaktivinoda as being *apart* from shastra. To the Gaudiya Vaishnavas following in his line, it *is* shastra. What he is presenting is not any different than what has come before (in essence; no doubt we can point out so many superficial differences).

 

I doubt very, very much that this was his intent. It is akin to Srila Prabhupada telling his disciples not to think he is God, and his disciples acting contrary to that instruction and proclaiming that he is God after all, just saying he is not out of humility. Sentiments of the disciples can lead to serious deviations if not controlled by the intelligence.

[Guest guest]

 

Originally Posted by Lowborn

"Seems like it is precisely Bhaktivinoda who reduced shastra to fairy tales with a moral."

 

It's not clear exactly how you came to this conclusion, but, to show correlation between the scripture (shastra) and science is not to devalue the shastra..

 

Most people would not call his ideas from introduction to Sri Krsna Samhita "showing correlation between shastra and science". Bluntly speaking he essentially said that a lot of scriptural stories are gross embellishments, and most of them never even took place in the physical reality, as both shastra and tradition claim. That is why I made my comment as quoted above.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

That is precisely the problem with certain Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements on the shastra, such as that Hanuman was simply a non-aryan south indian man. He does not know that for a fact - that was just his opinion based on the current scientific views.

 

As long as he is not pretending he knows it for a fact, I can appreciate his perspective. But why cant we also rationally and scientifically proclaim that Hanuman was simply an exceptionally strong Neanderthal man? It is an old story, perhaps from the time when modern men lived side by side with Neanderthals or other hominids. And who knows what will be the "current scientific view" of that story in 200 years? Seems like it is precisely Bhaktivinoda who reduced shastra to fairy tales with a moral.

 

At the time Bhaktivinoda wrote the very controversial introduction to his Sri Krsna Samhita he was not initiated into ANY Vaishnava sampradaya, still ate fish, and made no claim to represent any Gaudiya line. It was simply his attempt to put shastras into a perspective that would appeal to the rational and scientifically minded segment of the Indian population. Yet, later on, myth-making process was started to somehow present his writings as "equal to if not better than shastra" and devotees like you have an absolute faith in his statements while you only have relative faith in the stories from the scripture.

 

The writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda contain a tremendous wealth of knowledge and inspiration, yet the principle of rationality applies to them just as he applies the principle of rationality to shastra. A less generous person would say however, that while the Vedas are considered the breath of Lord Vishnu, Sri Krsna Samhita is only a breath of Bhaktivinoda.

 

This is an old discussion.

 

Suffice to say that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura published Sri Krishna Samhita and taught the things in that book to his disciples.

[muralidhar_das 0]

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Lowborn

That is precisely the problem with certain Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements on the shastra, such as that Hanuman was simply a non-aryan south indian man.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Please present the actual reference you are refering to.

 

Please present the actual reference you are refering to.

 

 

In the Introduction to Sri Krishna Samhita:

 

 

Many brahmanas from the South admit that they were turned into brahmanas by Parashurama. Those brahmanas who lived with Parashurama in the province of Malabara preached the Aryan scriptures throughout Dakshinatya. That is how the astrology of Kerala and other sciences were introduced. The descendants of those brahmanas are still current today; they are known as Sarasvata brahmanas.

 

Immediately after this incident, the battle between Ravana and Rama took place. Ravana, the King of Lanka, was very powerful at the time. One rishi from the dynasty of Pulastya left Brahmavarta and resided on the island of Lanka for some time. The dynasty of Ravana began after that rishi married a daughter from the dynasty of Raksha. We can therefore say that Ravana was half Raksha and half Aryan. Due to his prowess, King Ravana gradually captured many of the southern provinces of India. Finally his kingdom extended up to the banks of the Godavari River, where he appointed two commanders—Khara and Dushana—to guard the border. When Rama and Lakshmana built a cottage on the banks of the Godavari, Ravana thought that the descendants of the Surya dynasty were building a fort near his border in order to attack his kingdom. Considering this, King Ravana took the help of Marica, the son of Taraka, who was a resident of Bakasara, and kidnapped Sita. Ramacandra took the help of people from Dakshinatya and Kiskinda in order to locate Sita. Valmiki was an Aryan poet who had a natural tendency to tease the people of Dakshinatya. That is why he described the great heroes and friends of Rama in a comical way. He described some of them as monkeys, some as bears, and some as Rakshasas. He even described them as having tails and being covered with hair. Anyway, during the time of Ramacandra, the seed of friendship was sown between the Aryans and the people of Dakshinatya. There is no doubt about this. The seed later became a large tree, which produced excellent fruits. Otherwise, the people of Karnata, Dravida, Maharashtra, and Mysore would not have become known as Hindus. Ramacandra took the help of the people of those countries to conquer Lanka and rescue Sita.

 

I talked with Srila Sridhar Maharaj about the things like this in Sri Krishna Samhita and he supported the point of view of Bhaktivinode Thakura completely.

 

I can show you statements of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur teaching these topics discussed in Sri Krishna Samhita. Take a look at the book Sri Chaitanya's Teachings by Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and you will find lots of instances where Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur teaches these point presented in Sri Krishna Samhita.

 

As far as fish eating goes... Bhaktivinode Thakura realized it is better to be vegetarian and he became a vegetarian. But Vamsi das Babaji, who Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur regarded as a paramahamsa, he ate fish (Srila Sridhar Maharaj, again, is my source of knowledge of this, and Srila Sridhar Maharaj used to visit and sit with Vamsi das Babaji when he was visiting Koladwip). Aside that, what about the Pandava named Bhima. Why not have a discussion on this site about the fact that in the Mahabharata it states in plain text that Bhima used to eat beef? There is a large section in the Mahabharata where Bhishmadeva praises the value of eating meat. Etc. etc. etc. I could also quote some startling statements from the Ramayana as well but I don't want to freak people out.

 

In the end, we followers of Srila Saraswati Thakura have been taught that we will follow in the footsteps of Bhaktivinode Thakura who taught us to become vegetarians. And we will worship the dust of the feet of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

I doubt very, very much that this was his intent. It is akin to Srila Prabhupada telling his disciples not to think he is God, and his disciples acting contrary to that instruction and proclaiming that he is God after all, just saying he is not out of humility. Sentiments of the disciples can lead to serious deviations if not controlled by the intelligence.

 

His intent is beyond my perception.

 

Gurudev, on the other hand, I trust to know his intention, and convey to me as he desires.

 

I don't think your comparison is valid. Nowhere is it said that Lord Sri Krishna has *written* any scriptures, and yet the words of the Lord are there. Bhagavad Gita is told not directly by the Lord Himself, but by Sanjaya to Drtarastra. Do we know the name of the sage who transcribed it?

 

The compilers of the Shastra are divinely inspired. What makes Vedavyas any better than Saccidananda Bhaktivinoda?

 

Let's look at the point you use for comparison though. While we may quibble theologically about whether Guru is God or "as good as God" (is it not another case of acintya beda bed?), functionally, what is the difference? It is clearly stated in shastra that Guru is as good as God. In our devotional lives, then, for all intents and purposes Guru *is* God.

 

Regarding sentiments and deviation, yes, you are right. We must rely on Gurudeva and the Vaishnavas (such as yourself) and our own sincerity to correct us when we deviate and keep us on the path.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

His first direct contact with Vaishnavism was through a karta-bhaja master who introduced him to the mantra and made a stunning prediction about impending devastation of his home village by a disease. That clearly impressed Bhaktivinoda.

 

Perhaps Bhaktivinoda was born in a lower caste shakta family so that he might grow up without pre-conceived notions of what Vaishnavism should be. It is often hard to be a reformer if you absorb a particular flavor of a tradition in your childhood.

 

You should read his autobiography. It is very enlivening. His honesty and sincerity are very vivid in that account.

Yes his honesty and sincerity are enlivening.

 

And here is some more of his writings from Sri Krishna Samhita. He explains that the story of the King Bhagiratha taking the Ganges to earth is an allegory for King Bhagiratha taking the "glories" of the Ganges into eastern India (Bengal). And moreover, that Parasurama converted south indian "non-aryans" into Brahmins.

 

The thing is, it is a proven fact that in Bali, Manipura and other places the Aryan culture was assimilated into local culture and local "shamans" were converted into being brahmins.

 

Obviously, people who hold the opinion that a person must be born as an Aryan brahmin would create an UPROAR (to use Lowborn's terminology) when they read this sort of theory presented by Bhaktivinoda. Similarly the ISKCON version of world history and cycles of the ages (yugas) is challenged by the words of Bhaktivinoda, and if you try to give a Sunday lecture about what Bhaktivinoda says in Sri Krishna Samhita about the history of India then that would probably also create an UPROAR. So instead the guest lecturer will tell you stories about how the earth is the centre of the universe and that the americans never went to the moon.

 

Maybe in their next lifetime the pure land Aryans will recognize how evolution is really happening in this world.

 

 

 

If we accept the modern opinion regarding the Ganges, then it may be said that King Bhagiratha of the Surya dynasty performed a great job of spreading the glories of the Ganges up to the ocean, thus extending the area of Aryavarta. At that time Aryavarta extended only as far as Mithila, and the dynasty of Manu was almost extinct. The kingdoms of the Surya and Rudra dynasties were both very powerful at the time, and they had such an alliance that no general work could go on anywhere in India without their consent. When King Sagara's sons were cursed to die near the ocean, it created a bad name for the Surya dynasty. In order to counteract that bad name, King Bhagiratha worshiped Brahma, the leader of the demigods, and Shiva, the King of the Rudra kingdom, and thus received permission to make Aryavarta prosperous. Bhagiratha then connected the Ganges with the ocean. In the beginning, the Sarasvati was the only sacred river. Gradually when the areas around the Yamuna were populated by the Aryans, the glories of the Yamuna also spread. Then during the time of Bhagiratha, the Ganges became celebrated as the topmost of all sacred rivers.

 

Some time after this incident there was a great quarrel between the brahmanas and the kshatriyas. During this time the Aryans and the kshatriyas saw that the demigods' kingdom had become weak and they began to neglect them; they even killed many of the prominent rishis. When the brahmanas were unable to tolerate these incidents, they appointed Parashurama as their commander-in-chief and began to retaliate. Kartaviryarjuna of the Haihaya dynasty accumulated many kshatriyas and entered the war against the brahmanas. Kartavirya was killed by Parashurama's unbearable axe. Kartaviryarjuna had ruled the city of Mahishmati, on the bank of the Narmada River. He was so powerful that the non-Aryans from the Dakshinatya had always remained fearful of him. King Ravana of Lanka did not dare to come to Aryavarta out of fear of Kartaviryarjuna. The brahmanas, however, were not satisfied by killing Kartavirya. They gradually began to fight with the kings of the Surya and Candra dynasties. It is said that Parashurama rid the whole world of all kshatriyas twenty-one times and then gave the world to Kashyapa to rule. The purport is that the demigods' kingdom of Brahmavarta fell into the hands of the brahmanas of the Kashyapa dynasty. When the Kashyapa dynasty had nearly collapsed and many kings were ruling, Parashurama reestablished the Kashyapa dynastys' rule. Learned scholars of that time, however, considered that the brahmanas were no longer capable of ruling the kingdom, so the kshatriyas should rule. Prominent brahmanas and kshatriya kings had various meetings, out of which the Manu scriptures were brought into being. Later we will discuss whether those Manu scriptures are still current or not. Brahmavarta, or the kingdom of the demigods, was no longer respected by the local people. The demigods were respected only during sacrifices. That also was simply in the form of names and mantras. The actual brahmana communities became highly respected. In this way, although the brahmanas and kshatriyas had an alliance between themselves, Parashurama again fought with the kshatriyas out of greed to capture the kingdom. In the Ramayana it is stated that Parashurama went to fight Ramacandra, but he was defeated and exiled to Mahendra Mountain, near Kanya-kumari. The brahmanas assisted Ramacandra in achieving this, and thus Parashurama became particularly envious of the brahmanas and created a few kinds of brahmanas in the South.

 

 

 

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Most people would not call his ideas from introduction to Sri Krsna Samhita "showing correlation between shastra and science". Bluntly speaking he essentially said that a lot of scriptural stories are gross embellishments, and most of them never even took place in the physical reality, as both shastra and tradition claim. That is why I made my comment as quoted above.

Your statements regarding Bhaktivinoda's comments on Hanuman led me to my assumptions (not being familiar with the work on which you comment).

 

Just previously, I said, I cannot percieve the intentions of Srila Bhaktivinoda, but here, it might be useful to at least speculate.

 

I believe that Bhaktivinoda, as Srila Sridhar Maharaj has explicitly stated, is begging us to "dive deep into Reality the Beautiful" by pointing out that our goal in studying the shastra is to seek the essence and not to dance around the periphery becoming engrossed in "trivia".

 

As a child, Krishna Book, the story of Prahlad and Hiranyakasipu, etc., *were* my "fairy tales" (in the sense of "bedtime stories"). I wasn't aware that I was learning any philosophical conception, I was enraptured by the high drama. Each year, as I hear the story of Narasimhadev, greater relevance and significance is revealed (hopefully by Mercy and not my own speculation). I have come to see that this is not just "history", but, rather, it is an ever-present condition in the material world. Even now, "global warming" is reminiscent of the heating effect on the *universe* (not just this planet) that Hiranyakasipu's austerities generated.

 

Now, let's not talk about "physical reality" when referring to this great illusion, eh? Yes, so many of the shastric histories are not material and mundane. Don't we get enough mundane stories already? This is not a fault of the shastra, it is their gift--they offer relief from the so-called reality in which we are all suffering. They offer a glimpse into worlds beyond our comprehension.

[Guruvani 0]

Names of Hanuman:

 

Jayakapisha - Victorious Monkey

Kapisvara - Leader of the monkeys

 

Kapisenayaka - Leader of the monkey army

Harimarkatamarkata - Lord of the monkeys

Vanara - monkey

these are traditional names that Hanuman has been referred to for thousands of years in Bharatabhumi.

[krishnadasa 0]

Great explanation, thanks , how dangerous situatuation we are in

 

Hari bol

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Names of Hanuman:

 

Jayakapisha - Victorious Monkey

Kapisvara - Leader of the monkeys

 

Kapisenayaka - Leader of the monkey army

Harimarkatamarkata - Lord of the monkeys

Vanara - monkey

these are traditional names that Hanuman has been referred to for thousands of years in Bharatabhumi.

 

Question. For how many thousands of years in Bharatbhumi has the word "kapi" been translated into English as "monkey"?

 

To me it makes little difference if Hanuman-ji is a monkey or a monkey-like human. In fact, while I haven't been around many monkeys in person, just from the pictures and video of monkeys I've seen, it seems evident that there is a great intelligence (and even wisdom) present in them.

 

One could even go so far to say that many monkeys are more spiritually-evolved than some degraded humans we might encounter.

[Guruvani 0]

The Bhagavat of Vedavyasa describes Hanuman as a "Kimpurusha".

The Kimpurusha species are not human, yet not Monkey either.

They are a unique species that are actually something of a unique species of life that are human-like yet with some primate-like features.

 

So, in the strict sense the Kimpurusas are not monkeys by no means, yet they are not humans either. They are a form of life that has similar features to both human and primates.

 

Kimpurushas were much more than monkeys, so it is not correct to refer to them as ordinary monkeys of Earth.

 

Yet, they are not humans either.

 

Hanuman was a Kimpurusa, not a human or a monkey.

 

Something of a third form that has some similar features to both species.

 

So, it is not correct to think of Hanuman as a monkey.

 

Hanuman was a Kimpurusha which in certain ways were certainly more advanced and cultured than so-called "humans" of kali-yuga.

 

 

Compared to the humans of kali-yuga, the Kimpurushas are more demigod than human, though they have some primate-like physical features.

 

So, to say that Hanuman was human is wrong.

To say he is Monkey is wrong.

 

Hanuman was a different species altogether that the Vedic scriptures refer to as "Kimpurusha" which means "are these humans?"

[Guruvani 0]

I will post the verse of the Srimad Bhagavatam which is conclusive as far as I am concerned about whether Hanuman was monkey or human.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.14.5-7

 

tebhyaḥ pitṛbhyas tat-putrā

deva-dānava-guhyakāḥ

manuṣyāḥ siddha-gandharvāḥ

sa-vidyādhara-cāraṇāḥ

kindevāḥ kinnarā nāgā

rakṣaḥ-kimpuruṣādayaḥ

bahvyas teṣāḿ prakṛtayo

rajaḥ-sattva-tamo-bhuvaḥ

yābhir bhūtāni bhidyante

bhūtānāḿ patayas tathā

yathā-prakṛti sarveṣāḿ

citrā vācaḥ sravanti hi

 

SYNONYMS

tebhyaḥ — from them (Bhṛgu Muni, etc.); pitṛbhyaḥ — from the forefathers; tat — their; putrāḥ — sons, descendants; deva — the demigods; dānava — demons; guhyakāḥ — the Guhyakas; manuṣyāḥ — human beings; siddha-gandharvāḥ — Siddhas and Gandharvas; sa-vidyādhara-cāraṇāḥ — along with Vidyādharas and Cāraṇas; kindevāḥ — a different human species; kinnarāḥ — half-humans; nāgāḥ — snakes; rakṣaḥ — demons; kimpuruṣa — an advanced race of monkeys; ādayaḥ — and so on; bahvyaḥ — many different; teṣām — of such living entities; prakṛtayaḥ — desires or natures; rajaḥ-sattva-tamaḥ-bhuvaḥ — being generated from the three modes of material nature; yābhiḥ — by such material desires or tendencies; bhūtāni — all such living entities; bhidyante — appear divided in many material forms; bhūtānām — and their; patayaḥ — leaders; tathā — divided in the same way; yathā-prakṛti — according to propensity or desire; sarveṣām — of all of them; citrāḥ — variegated; vācaḥ — Vedic rituals and mantras; sravanti — flow down; hi — certainly.

 

TRANSLATION

From the forefathers headed by Bhṛgu Muni and other sons of Brahmā appeared many children and descendants, who assumed different forms as demigods, demons, human beings, Guhyakas, Siddhas, Gandharvas, Vidyādharas, Cāraṇas, Kindevas, Kinnaras, Nāgas, Kimpuruṣas, and so on. All of the many universal species, along with their respective leaders, appeared with different natures and desires generated from the three modes of material nature. Therefore, because of the different characteristics of the living entities within the universe, there are a great many Vedic rituals, mantras and rewards.

 

PURPORT

If one is curious why Vedic literatures recommend so many different methods of worship and advancement, the answer is given here. Bhṛgu, Marīci, Atri, Ańgirā, Pulastya, Pulaha and Kratu are the seven great brāhmaṇa sages and forefathers of this universe. The Kindevas are a race of human beings who are, like the demigods, completely free from fatigue, sweat and body odor. Seeing them, one may thus ask, kiḿ devāḥ: "Are they demigods?" Actually, they are human beings living on another planet within the universe. The Kinnaras are so called because they are kiñcin narāḥ, or "a little like human beings." The Kinnaras have either a human head or human body (but not both) combined with a nonhuman form. The Kimpuruṣas are so called because they resemble human beings and thus prompt the question kiḿ puruṣāḥ: "Are these human beings?" Actually, they are a race of monkeys who are almost like human beings.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura explains that this verse describes the varieties of forgetfulness of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The different Vedic mantras and rituals are especially meant for the different species of intelligent beings throughout the universe; but this proliferation of Vedic formulas indicates only the variety of material illusion and not a variety of ultimate purpose. The ultimate purpose of the many Vedic injunctions is one — to know and love the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Lord Himself is emphatically explaining this to Śrī Uddhava.

 

[Guruvani 0]

The Lord himself says that Hanuman is a Kimpurusa.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.16.29

 

vāsudevo bhagavatāḿ

tvaḿ tu bhāgavateṣv aham

kimpuruṣānāḿ hanumān

vidyādhrāṇāḿ sudarśanaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

vāsudevaḥ — the Supreme Personality of Godhead; bhagavatām — of those entitled to the name Bhagavān; tvam — you; tu — indeed; bhāgavateṣu — among My devotees; aham — I am; kimpuruṣāṇām — among the Kimpuruṣas; hanumān — Hanumān; vidyādhrāṇām — among the Vidyādharas; sudarśanaḥ — Sudarśana.

TRANSLATION

Among those entitled to the name Bhagavān I am Vāsudeva, and indeed, you, Uddhava, represent Me among the devotees. I am Hanumān among the Kimpuruṣas, and among the Vidyādharas I am Sudarśana.

 

[theist 1]

I believe that Bhaktivinoda, as Srila Sridhar Maharaj has explicitly stated, is begging us to "dive deep into Reality the Beautiful" by pointing out that our goal in studying the shastra is to seek the essence and not to dance around the periphery becoming engrossed in "trivia".

[theist 1]

Actually I am trying to ignore the periphrey as much as possible. So many things there cause me doubt. Another one is Krsna is said to be scheduled to come to Earth every 8+ billion years as Shyamasundara. OK fine but how many 8 billion periods have elasped since the formation of the Earth? Just how old is the earth anyway?

 

There is just so much in these books I cannot accept on face value. But intertwined within those what are to me dubious statements are the richest of spiritual truths that I have ever heard.

 

Many devotees have told me it is a blanket deal. One most accept it all or reject it all as it is coming down in parampara it is infallible. I just can't accept a statement like that. My experience tells me otherwise.

 

Of course due to my thinking like this I would never consider myself a member of GVism in disciplic succession where a total belief n the words of guru are insisted upon.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

Actually I am trying to ignore the periphrey as much as possible. So many things there cause me doubt. Another one is Krsna is said to be scheduled to come to Earth every 8+ billion years as Shyamasundara. OK fine but how many 8 billion periods have elasped since the formation of the Earth? Just how old is the earth anyway?

According to the Bhagavata, Varahadeva raised the uninhabited earth from the waters of dissolution, and after that life on earth began.

 

In the Laghu-Bhagavatamrta, it says, "Lord Varaha appeared twice in one kalpa (day of Brahma). He appeared during the Svayambhuva-manvantara from Brahma's nostril to rescue the earth, and during the sixth manvantara (Caksusa-manvantara), He appeared to rescue the earth and kill Hiranyaksa."

It is seen that in the Bhagavatam, in answer to Vidura's questions, Maitreya Muni has described the pastimes of Lord Varaha in both the Svayambhuva devastation and Caksusa devastation. Maitreya mixed the information about one lila of Varaha together with the information about another lila. The words of Maitreya, and by extension the Bhagavatam, therefore cannot be treated as a source of historical information. Rather the Bhagavatam is poetry that is meant to uplift us to a stage where we have appreciation for the beauty and greatness of the Lord.

In the Bhagavatam, therefore, the sages are not presenting a chronological "history" of the universe but rather a spiritual message that can help souls who seeking God. If we want a chronological history of the universe, we need to look somewhere else for that knowledge.

Vidura asked:

“How is it, the Absolute which is immutable and which is beyond all gunas engages in action which results in the creation of the universe? Even if it is a Leela, is this Leela not incompatible with the nirguna nature of the Transcendental Absolute?” (Bhag 3.7.2).

“Maitreya, you said earlier that it is through avidya (Cosmic Ignorance) that the Lord creates, sustains and dissolves the universe; but He is the Almighty and He is beyond time and space. How did He associate Himself with avidya? In all bodies the experiencer (jiva) is also nothing but a spark of the Absolute. How can the Atma (self) lose the Bliss that he came from and how can he suffer because of material actions?”

 

With these sorts of questions as the background, Maitreya narrates the story of the formation of the universe and of the Avatara of Varahadeva.

Vidura is asking questions from the viewpoint of someone who sees God as "nirguna" or formless. In answer to this, Maitreya describes God's descent as Mahavishnu and so forth, ultimately coming to the description of Varahadeva.

For people who are accustomed to seeing God as "light" the image of Varaha is a great challenge to their thinking. It is for this reason (according to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswat in his commentary to Chaitanya Bhagavata) that the Lord incarnates as Varaha. When Sri Nimai Pandita (Gauranga, Sri Chaitanya) first started exhibiting himself as Visnu, the first manifestation he showed was that he is Varaha. This shocked the devotees in Nabadwip. The form of God as Varaha is a shocking sight. It awakens within us the realization that He can play his Leela in ways that we never imagined. Such is the greatness of Bhagavan.

In the discussion below Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura explains how different Deities are attractive to beings at different stages of evolution. For those who have just become vertebrate, or in other words who have become animals, the form of God that they appreciate is Varaha.

 

 

Professor Albert Suthers: -- In the scriptures of India, adorable Deities have been represented as creatures of the lower creation like fish, tortoise, boar, etc. Is this approved by the sense of decency of civilised humanity? Some again are in favour of supporting such representations as allegorical symbols.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura: -- Imagination does not find a place in Vaishnava Philosophy. In it or in the Shrimad Bhagavatam which is the highest scripture for all men in the universe has been described the topmost ontology about God, million times better than what the most civilised races of humanity five thousands years old, nay, as old as several millions of eras, can conceive of even in imagination.

The eternal transcendental forms of God that descend or are manifested according to the gradual evolution of the aptitude for offering service by the totally purified soul quite aloof from the regions of the body and mind, when man becomes the worshipper of the ultimate Reality at the loftiest stage of civilisation, are never the idols of imagination or allegories like unreal things manufactured in the mental factory of man or like the imaginary animal deities of the barbarians such as the tiger-god, serpent-god, horse-god, etc. The worship of the Vishnu Incarnations, like Fish, Turtle, etc., is not fabrication of imagination like that of one of the five deities of the Henotheists formed out of imagination, based on the coinage of set speeches like the imaginary conception of the forms of Brahman (as in the Panchadasi of the monistic school). The Henotheists do not admit the Transcendental Personality of Godhead. The sects of figurative allegorists like the Theosophists are not real theists, cherishing, as they do, doubt against the Personality of God and for that reason they want to curtail god's Omni-potentiality and his Transcendental Names, Appearances, Attributes, Sports by means of allegorical description.

The Vaishnava philosophy or that of the ever-existent religion of India has never supported the atheistic doctrines of such professors of imaginary forms of Brahman, or figurative allegorists. It is about the doctrine of pure and real Avatara-vada (cult of Incarnation) that the philosophy of the ever-existing Indian religion has said. As the pure and real doctrine of Avataras of Fish, Turtle, etc. of the Vaishnavas is not a kind of imagination of the barbarian taste, nor the idolatry of the Mayavadins on the basis of their aphorism of forms of Brahman, imagined for the convenience of practicants, nor the allegorical description of the psychists, so it is not the Anthropomorphism (i.e. representation of the deity as having human forms), as devised by the so-called civilised section of the people, nor Therianthropism (i.e. representation of one's tutelary deity in a combined man-and-beast form), nor even Apotheosis (i.e. elevating man to the dignity of deities). These are respective types of the idolatry of the menatal speculationists of the inductive school.

In imitation of Mayavada, the evil fruit of the Indian civilisation, Anthropomorphsim was invented in Greece and Rome and Therianthropism in Egypt, etc. When the new doctrines got access in those countries along with the commodities produced by the Indian civilization which were based on the imagination of the anthrophysites like the Indian Mayavadins who exalted man or beasts to the status of God with the attribution of divinity to them calling jivas and the poor as 'Narayana' with gratification of the senses in the back ground, then the mental speculations of those respective countries adopted the cheap vitiated Indian dogmas and, labeling new names on them, passed these doctrinal commodities into the forum of religious tenets. But the true Vaishnava philosophy of India never indulged in any such doctrine based on imagination. Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has refuted all such imaginative doctrines or idolatries and rejected both Anthropomorphism and Therianthropism. He vouchsafed the Shastric teaching, viz., that he must be a heretic and sinner who looks upon God Narayana as equal to deities like Brahma, etc.

Anthropomorphism i.e., representation of the Deity with human form and attributes, resembles the tenet of the Bauls of Bengal attributing divinity to the head of their sect, professing, as they do, though wrongly, to have perceptorially descended from Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Such tenets are the mental imaginations of atheists like the Bouddhas and of the Bauls as above, running contrary to the teachings of Shri Buddha-Vishnu and Shri Chaitanya-Vishnu respectively. The Mayavadi sect too has adopted similar principles. The really scientific philosophy of the Shrimad Bhagavatam and the preachings of Shri Chaitanya Deva have, of course, accepted the human bodyas the Divine Manifestation; but that human body is not the creation of anthropomorphism, nor of the Baul doctrine, but it is the eternal, transcendental Sachidananda Body, the Cause of all causes, the highest Sportive Entity. When the human soul can acquire the wealth of all the sciences in perfection, then only is opened the door of the foremost mystery of true science. According to the Vaishnava Philosophy, the Sportive Manifestation of God is of two kinds. One kind is the creation of the material and spiritual universe and its systematization with inviolable rules. The school of intelligent empiricists can to a certain extent experience this type of God's Sportive Manifestation. The second kind is the Descent of God's Transcendental Sport in this created universe. It is the jivas who are the attendants in His Sports. They become attached to matter having deviated from their own essential nature as the result of their desire for enjoyment.

But when again the soul of a jiva, gains true wisdom of the transcendental region of God at the feet of a representative of His, i.e., a true devotee His, he begins to get back his pure essential nature gradually unfolded, and God's Transcendental Eternal Forms appear as the objects of his worship according to the comprehension of His service in the graded evolution of acceptance of His protection, self-surrender or theism. So in such a case there remains no room, even in the slightest degree, for any form of imaginative doctrines of the so-called civilised or uncivilised human minds, whether apotheosistic, anthropomorphic, henotheistic, theosophic, theriomorphic or therianthropic. The real, eternal and transcendental Divine Forms reveal themselves to the pure souls according to the nature of their serving mood in the evolutionary growth there. The only cause of these Divine Descents is the intense Mercy of God towards jivas. In Europe the theories of physical evolution of Darwin and Lamarck have been considered. But it is in the Vaishnava Philosophy alone that we see the fully scientific and real conception of each eternal and transcendental Divine Form for worship by the freed souls according to their evolutionary growth of serving mood.

We can notice the different stages of animal life from the invertebrates to the fully grown human beings. These stages have been classified by the Indian sages of a scientific outlook in ten orders, viz, (1) the invertebrate, (2) testaceous or shelly, (3) vertebrate, (4) erectly vertebrate (as in the combined form of man and beast), (5) mannikin, (6) barbaric, (7) civilised, (8) wise, (9) ultra-wise and (10) destructive. These are the historical stages of jivas. According to the gradation of these stages as indications of evolution of the serving mood of the jiva soul, there are manifested the ten Incarnations of God, viz., Matsya (fish), Kurma (Turtle), Varaha (Boar), Nrishmha (Man-Lion), Vamana (Dwarf), Parasu-rama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha and Kalki, as worshippable Deities with eternal transcendental Names, Forms, Attributes and Sports. Those who have acquired a true knowledge about Incarnations with a thorough culture thereof, will be able, with the grace of the philosophers trained in the school of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, to appreciate the ontology of Shri Krishna, specially the intense sweetness of His Sports at Braja (i.e. Vrindavana and the neighbourhood.)

 

Souls worship a Deity that is suitable for their stage of evolution.

[theist 1]

Muralidara,

 

Most of that went over my head I am afraid but I caught a little of the gist.

 

 

The words of Maitreya, and by extension the Bhagavatam, therefore cannot be treated as a source of historical information. Rather the Bhagavatam is poetry that is meant to uplift us to a stage where we have appreciation for the beauty and greatness of the Lord.

 

Ok that is what I also believe but dono't know how to articulate very well. But here is the thing. It is taught tht Sri Krsna comes to this particular earth on scedule once every 8+ billion years. That doesn't not seem like poetry. It is just presented as a hard fact. Am I to assume that this earth will still be here habitable for human beings in 8+ billion years from now and that it was here habitable for human beings 8+ billion years ago?

 

Why are these claims given to us as fact? Krsna can do anything but that doesn't mean He does everything.

 

I have a hard time accepting that this earth globe is more than 8 billion years old and that it will still be here in another 8 billion. To me this is just another unbelieveable staement like Ugrasena having six billion body guards in Mathura. Until someone can explain these statements to me in a satisfactory way I will just have to accept them as writers liberty. But then the question becomes one of where does it end. And why were such statements included anyway. They just cause confusion.

 

I am not of the temperment to "just believe because the guru says so."

[muralidhar_das 0]

Maitreya....

 

In another time and place....

 

But here we are, once again.

 

And now let's see how far I can go in telling what I believe to be true before someone sees a "heretic" in me and comes in "for the kill".

 

I personally think that this earth we are walking on was inhabited by creatures that arose from the sea. I also believe that souls in ghost and astral bodies can move "heaven and earth" and that these souls (call them devas or asuras) can descend to earth and walk on this ground I'm walking on. So in other words I think Darwin style evolution is a possiblity but that at the same time a "mind" can descend from a higher state of being and become a ghost in the machine of a crab body or a sea slug body. The minds like these that are at the sea shore are imprisoned in Patala or "hell" and Varahadev comes and defeats the king of these hell-ghosts called Hiranyaksa.

 

Think about the savageness of a shark and try to imagine the savage feeling of these beings. When these savage beasts and the savage eels are churning the ocean with their violence and rage the Lord descends in their field of view so they can see a beautiful alternative to their beastial existence. I feel the story of Varaha is a description about how God manifests in front of beasts and then creates a "beautiful world" that is like an island, a place where a man can live and where the stream of the Ganges can flow.

 

Men descended to this world from "astral" worlds, as far as I can see. This is my own speculation, I admit, but I believe Manu and other men who first inhabited earth emerged from the astral world.

 

I realized when I copy/pasted that talk by Saraswati Thakur it would go over the heads of most devotees. But the point is clear in his words, that he acknowledged a kind of Evolution that is an accommodation of observable facts we can see in nature but that allows for "spiritual" evolution as well.

 

In Europe the theories of physical evolution of Darwin and Lamarck have been considered. But it is in the Vaishnava Philosophy alone that we see the fully scientific and real conception of each eternal and transcendental Divine Form for worship by the freed souls according to their evolutionary growth of serving mood.

Evolution happens. And I'm seeking to understand how it happens.

[Beggar 0]

But always remember, the world is in the mind, the mind is not a brain floating through an objective reality. Therefore reality is subjective and there is the Super Subjective to Whom we [as minor subjects] are objects. We only see what we are shown, something like hypnotism. Consequently the real evolution is the subjective evolution of consciousness. [A paraphrase of Srila Sridhar Maharaj]

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

But always remember, the world is in the mind, the mind is not a brain floating through an objective reality. Therefore reality is subjective and there is the Super Subjective to Whom we [as minor subjects] are objects. We only see what we are shown, something like hypnotism. Consequently the real evolution is the subjective evolution of consciousness. [A paraphrase of Srila Sridhar Maharaj]

 

 

Beggar this is what I was trying to say, but it is hard to say that pure mind creates things. We know that pure consciousness produces "chit-abhasa" and that this leads to ahankara, buddhi, mind and then sky, air, fire etc.

 

This is what I feel happens. There is both evolution of both the physical and mental existence.

[Guest guest]

 

The compilers of the Shastra are divinely inspired. What makes Vedavyas any better than Saccidananda Bhaktivinoda?

 

 

Krsna Dvaipayana Vyasa is an empowered saktyavasa avatar of the Lord, designated for the cosmic post of Vayasadev. He is universally recognized and accepted as such by all Vaishnava sampradayas and beyond. His writings are universally accepted a shastra.

 

The army of Lord Ramachandra consisted of Kinnara soldiers. Srila Bhaktivinoda theorized that Kinnaras as described by the Vedic literature are (in that case at least) mere Dravidians. You are welcome to believe that he is right, but this is precisely what I described as turning shastra into fairytales with a moral. This is how many Vaishnavas saw his introduction to Sri Krsna Samhita.

[Guest guest]

 

The Bhagavat of Vedavyasa describes Hanuman as a "Kimpurusha".

The Kimpurusha species are not human, yet not Monkey either.

They are a unique species that are actually something of a unique species of life that are human-like yet with some primate-like features.

 

So, in the strict sense the Kimpurusas are not monkeys by no means, yet they are not humans either. They are a form of life that has similar features to both human and primates.

 

Kimpurushas were much more than monkeys, so it is not correct to refer to them as ordinary monkeys of Earth.

 

Yet, they are not humans either.

 

Hanuman was a Kimpurusa, not a human or a monkey.

 

 

I very much agree with that logic. My point is that to describe these Kimpurusha warriors as mere Dravidians is contradicting shastra in an obvious fashion. The shastra can easily tell a difference between South Indian men and Kimpurushas.