8,000,400 different species in the universe?

[Guest guest]

 

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".

 

I understand the desire to "rationalize" the shastric stories as expressed by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. But what about other aspects of our tradition? How about the position of a guru? So many things in our tradition are not very "rational". Is it rational to believe that what Srila Bhaktivinoda wrote in his early life is absolutely true while the "peripheral" shastric stories are mere embellishments? Is it rational to place so much faith in another person in that regard? And precisely when did this "absolute knowledge" start in Bhaktivinoda Thakura? Is his first childhood poem "shastra" as well? THIS is completely irrational to me.

 

I accept the later writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura because they match the siddhanta of our disciplic succession, but I see his early writings as a somewhat mixed blessing. No disrespect - just a healthy scepticism born out of my deep respect for shastra, tradition, and other sadhus.

[Guruvani 0]

If my memory serves me correctly, Srila Bhaktivinode compiled Sri Krishna Samhita before he was initiated by Vipina Goswami and long before he became siksha disciple of Jagannatha das Babaji.

The biography in GM version of Jaiva Dharma describes Srila Bhaktivinode as having compiled Sri Krishna Samhita while he was in Puri, before he came to be posted in Bengal.

 

So, that was before he took formal diksha and before he accepted Jagannatha Das Babaji as siksha guru.

 

This is not to minimize the book or the Thakur, but just to state an historical fact.

[Guruvani 0]

I am still at a loss to find the actual statement of Bhaktivinode where is explicitly states that Hanuman was a human being of South Indian ethnicity.

 

Can somebody please help me find the exact statement that is causing all the uproar?

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

I am still at a loss to find the actual statement of Bhaktivinode where is explicitly states that Hanuman was a human being of South Indian ethnicity.

 

Can somebody please help me find the exact statement that is causing all the uproar?

In Sri Krishna Samhita...

 

 

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.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura published Sri Krishna Samhita twice and gave it to his disciples to read and study. When the first print was "sold out" it was reprinted. And since the 1930's the book has been reprinted again and again by various Maths in Bengal.

 

I can understand that someone may feel uncomfortable about some of the things said in Sri Krishna Samhita. I myself was astonished by some of these things, and moreover by statements in the Bhagavat lecture about how the hells in Srimad Bhagavatam are just stories that were invented to keep the common people well behaved. So I asked Srila Sridhar Maharaj about this and he was quite definite; he supported the things said in Sri Krishna Samhita and even urged me to study it.

 

What I understand from all this is that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur was not trying to establish a new modernist or "scientific" view of the scriptures, a new alternative way of viewing the scriptures, but that he was drawing our attention to the fact that the scripures were written by (spiritual) men and that we need to go beyond the literal meanings of things and "awaken". We need to understand reality. If devotees openly discuss topics such as the fact that in Bhagavata it says the moon is further away from earth than the sun, this is not heresy.

 

And as far as the evidence that Kimpurushas were a separate race of beings living in South India, where is the archeological evidence for this? The city of Dvaraka is discovered and being excavated, just like the city of Troy was discovered, or more recently the tomb of Herod in Palestine. I see no harm in allowing our religion to be examined by science and reason.

 

The evidence that Sri Chaitanya really existed is irrefutable. And for me, nothing else really matters. Krishna lives in the realm of "Super-Consciousness"and Sri Chaitanya showed the way to enter that plane of existence.

 

When Krishna was living in this world people believed in magic and some had magic powers. But nowadays you cannot find any people with mystic powers, even if you offer $1million to them as a prize if anyone who can do supernatural tricks. People can walk on fire and I have no doubt that some men in the past could use mantras to create "brahmastra" forces and so forth, but nobody can do that now. The city of Hastinapura has been excavated and science can tell us what the people ate and how tall they were. If I find out that people in India were six feet tall and not 40 feet tall, does that disprove the proposition that Krishna appears on earth again and again (yada yada hi dharmasya, Gita 4.7)? The poetry of the Bhagavatam tells the story of Krishna in an artistic way. I wouldn't want it to be told any other way, since Mahaprabhu found great nectar in Bhagavatam and gave that nectar to others. But is Bhagavatam a book about "history"? Not for me. It is a book that tells us how to find God.

 

To me it seems sad that some devotees think science and reason are opposed to Krishna concsiousness. We all use medicine when we get dysentry in India, we use cars and computers, so does it make sense to say science is BAD? Not for me.

[Guruvani 0]

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu offered his respects to Hanuman deities during his lila.

If Hanuman was actually a human being portrayed as a monkey, wouldn't Mahaprabhu have had some problem with that?

 

None of the six Goswamis or any other great Gaudiya acharya ever took exception to Hanuman being portrayed as a Kimpurusa or monkey-like.

 

Then the whole story of Hanuman burning down Lanka with the fire on his tale is all a fabrication and a myth?

I guess now we are supposed to think he was just a human with a torch and that a human jumped from South India to Lanka?

No human can jump from South India to Sri Lanka.

 

I am not so sure that Bhaktivinode was actually saying what he is being accused of saying.

 

A personal conversation between Muralidhar with Sridhar Maharaja hardly equates with shastric verses that have been accepted with full faith for thousands of years.

 

To call the Kimpurusa race as "people" is also not anything incomprehensible.

 

Sugriva was the monkey king of Ramayana - not Hanuman.

 

Even the Lord says Hanuman is Kimpurusa.

 

Myself, I am not so convinced that from one paragraph in the introduction of Sri Krishna Samhita and a private conversation between Muralidhara and Sridhara Maharaja that Bhaktivinode was going against thousands of years of traditional belief that Hanuman was a primate/human Kimpurusa.

 

Personally, I don't buy it.

 

I think its way too radical for me to go against thousands of years of tradition and make Bhaktivinode out to be a lunatic with all this crazy talk about Hanuman being a human from south India.

 

I am not going for it.

It's way too revolutionary for me.

[muralidhar_das 0]

That's fine Prabhu

 

It is worth checking out the whole of the Sri Krishna Samhita so you can get a good idea about what Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur was thinking.

 

I have put the whole of the book online here:

SriKrishnaSamhita

 

 

Here is some more interesting info from Sri Krishna Samhita:

 

 

 

The very ancient history of India is covered by the dense darkness of forgetfulness, because there is no proper sequence in its ancient history. I will establish with a bit of conjecture whatever I can on the information I have acquired through the four Vedas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Puranas.

 

In the beginning, the Aryans lived in a small country named Brahmavarta, which was situated between the two rivers -- Sarasvati and Drsadvati. The present name of Drsadvati is Kagara1. The following verse from the Mahabharata (Vana-parva 83.4) creates some doubts in this regard. Swanlike people should destroy this doubt through samadhi.

 

daksinena sarasvatya drsadvaty uttarena ca

ye vasanti kuruksetre te vasanti tripistape

 

"One who lives in Kuruksetra, which is south of the Sarasvati River and north of the Drsadvati River, lives in heaven." By discussing the meaning of the name "Brahmavarta" it is assumed that the Aryans came from another country to reside therein. We cannot ascertain exactly where they came from, but it is believed that they came from some northwest country. In the description of Devi's tirtha near Kashmir in the Mahabharata (Vana-parva 82.102) it is stated:

 

prasutir yatra vipranam sruyate bharatarsabha

 

"It is said that brahmanas first came into existence at that place."

 

When they came, they were relatively civilized according to the time. There is no doubt about this. Being proud of their own civilization, they used to disregard the local natives. It is said that when the Aryans disregarded the local natives, the natives' king, Rudradeva, showed the Aryans his prowess by accepting in marriage the hand of Sati, the daughter of Prajapati Daksa, thus making an alliance with Daksa. Nevertheless the Aryans were so proud that after the marriage of Sati, they did not respect her or her husband. That is why Sati hated herself and gave up her body in Daksa's sacrificial arena and thereafter Siva with his followers began to heavily torture the Aryans. The brahmanas were later forced to make an alliance with Siva by allowing him a share in the sacrifice. Still, in order to maintain their superiority, the Aryans placed Siva's seat in the northeastern corner of the sacrificial arena.

 

There is no doubt that Daksa's fire sacrifice took place soon after the Aryans established Brahmavarta, because the ten personalities headed by Daksa are described as the original Prajapatis. The wife of Prajapati Daksa was named Prasuti. She was the daughter of Svayambhuva Manu, the son of Brahma. Svayambhuva Manu and the Prajapatis were the original inhabitants of Brahmavarta. Another son of Brahma was Marici, whose son was Kasyapa. The son of Kasyapa was Vivasvan, whose son was Vaivasvata Manu. The son of Vaivasvata Manu was Iksvaku. From this we must conclude that the Surya dynasty began with the sixth generation from Brahma.

 

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura suggests that the Aryans came to India from some country to the North West.

[shiva 0]

 

 

 

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):

 

 

 

 

 

When Prabhupada says evolve he doesn't mean it in the sense of evolution of species.

 

 

some quotes

 

 

"The different forms are already there. Just like the form of monkeys also there, the form of man is also there, other animals, other birds, beasts. So he has no clear conception how the evolution is taking place, neither he has any idea about whose evolution. He simply takes account of the body. A body never evolves. It is the soul within the body--he evolves, transmigrates from one body to another."

 

"So that point is missing in Darwin's theory. He says that body is evolving. That is nonsense. The body is evolving, then why the monkey body is not producing a human body at the present moment? Where is the evidence? The monkeys are already there. Where is the evidence in the zoo that a monkey has produced a human being? Do you think it is all right?"

 

 

"Not only human form of life but all the animal forms of life, they are also from the very beginning. Not like Darwin's theory that there was no human form of life in the beginning. That is a wrong theory. All the forms of life were there, and the, actually the body is external; within the body there is the soul. So the body is created by material nature and the soul is part and parcel of God. This is the real idea. So how they can refute this idea if they have no idea about the beginning of life?"

 

 

http://vedic-varnashrama-blog.blogspot.com/

[muralidhar_das 0]

According to the Mahabharata, Garuda is the prototype of all birds and he is the half brother of the first snakes such as Vasuki. Garuda had six sons and from them the birds of this world have evolved. Science also says that birds and reptiles are related species.

[shiva 0]

Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.73

 

te vayam noditah sarve

praja-sarge prajesvarah

anena dhvasta-tamasah

sisrikshmo vividhah prajah

 

When all the Prajapatis were ordered to create by Lord Brahma, we chanted these prayers in praise of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and became completely free from all ignorance. Thus we were able to create different types of living entities.

 

PURPORT

 

In this verse we can understand that the various types of living entities were created simultaneously at the very beginning of the creation. The nonsensical Darwinian theory of evolution is not applicable here. It is not that intelligent human beings did not exist millions of years ago. On the contrary, it is understood that the most intelligent creature, Lord Brahma, was first created. Then Lord Brahma created other saintly sages like Marici, Bhrigu, Atreya, Vasishtha and Lord Siva. They in their turn created different types of bodies according to karma. In Srimad-Bhagavatam Lord Kapiladeva told His mother that the living entity gets a particular type of body in accordance with his work and that this body is decided upon by higher authorities. The higher authorities, as appointed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are Lord Brahma and all other Prajapatis and Manus. Thus from the beginning of creation it can be seen that the first creature is the most intelligent. It is not that so-called modern intelligence has developed by the gradual process of evolution. As stated in Brahma-vaivarta Purana, there is a gradual evolutionary process, but it is not the body that is evolving. All the bodily forms are already there. It is the spiritual entity, or spiritual spark within the body, that is being promoted by the laws of nature under the supervision of superior authority. We can understand from this verse that from the very beginning of creation different varieties of living entities were existing. It is not that some of them have become extinct. Everything is there; it is due to our lack of knowledge that we cannot see things in their proper perspective.

 

In this verse the word dhvasta-tamasah is very important, for without being free of ignorance one cannot control the creation of different types of living entities. As stated in Srimad-Bhagavatam (3.31.1), daiva-netrena -- bodies are awarded under the supervision of superior powers. How can these superior powers control the evolutionary process of the living entity if they are not free from all imperfection? The followers of the Vedic instructions cannot accept the Darwinian theory of evolution, for it is marred by imperfect knowledge.

 

http://vedic-varnashrama-blog.blogspot.com/

[Guest guest]

 

It is worth checking out the whole of the Sri Krishna Samhita so you can get a good idea about what Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur was thinking.

 

 

Originally Posted by Thakura Bhaktivinoda

 

"The very ancient history of India is covered by the dense darkness of forgetfulness, because there is no proper sequence in its ancient history. I will establish with a bit of conjecture whatever I can on the information I have acquired through the four Vedas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Puranas."

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

 

Bhaktivinoda simply takes (prevailing at the time) Western view of the Vedic writings and adds his own blend of the traditional Vaishnava spiritual conclusions. In that sense he is even more radical than lets say Swami Yukteshvar, who also came up with his own way looking at the shastras (see his book "The Holy Science" - written in 1894) or Madame Blavatsky. This was the time of Theosophy and many religious thinkers in India and abroad experimented with the shastras in order to "modernize" and "rationalize" religion in order to get to the "Truth" (The motto of Theosophy is: "There is no religion higher than Truth"). Bhaktivinoda was actually perhaps the most radical of them all...

 

To claim that somehow his views expressed in Sri Krsna Samhita follow Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya is a complete misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of facts. As I pointed out earlier, Bhaktivinoda was not even initiated or introduced into ANY sampradaya, nor did he have a desire to follow the understanding of knowledge passed down through the existing Vaishnava sampradayas. He had his own vision of combining Western scholarship and understanding of the Vedas with certain traditional elements of Vaishnavism in order to create his own version of "Universal Religion" - the Holy Grail of all religious reformers of that very interesting era.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

To claim that somehow his views expressed in Sri Krsna Samhita follow Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya is a complete misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of facts. As I pointed out earlier, Bhaktivinoda was not even initiated or introduced into ANY sampradaya, nor did he have a desire to follow the understanding of knowledge passed down through the existing Vaishnava sampradayas. He had his own vision of combining Western scholarship and understanding of the Vedas with certain traditional elements of Vaishnavism in order to create his own version of "Universal Religion" - the Holy Grail of all religious reformers of that very interesting era.

I feel he is a sage. The Veda rishis were sages. Rupa-Sanatana were sages. The Vedas come from sages. Personally I have no problem with what he said and indeed I feel it is preferable to follow Bhaktivinoda Thakura's lead than to follow a mutterer of mantras whose only attainment in life is book-knowledge.

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's vision of Mayapura, his vision where he saw the Devas discussing verses 9.30/31 and his desire to worship Radharani at Kurukshetra, these things and more attract me to him.

[Guest guest]

 

I feel he is a sage. The Veda rishis were sages. Rupa-Sanatana were sages. The Vedas come from sages. Personally I have no problem with what he said and indeed I feel it is preferable to follow Bhaktivinoda Thakura's lead than to follow a mutterer of mantras whose only attainment in life is book-knowledge.

 

Dont get me wrong: I simply LOVE a lot of the stuff he wrote and said. For me it is not "all, or nothing". Yet I find some of his pronouncements to be mere speculations and (as he himself admits) conjectures subject to corrections as needed.

 

What I find really disturbing is devotees in our lineage projecting an image of "absolute truthfulness" to his writings, in line with the motto "a devotee of such caliber is never wrong". This is exactly the same blind faith that Bhaktivinoda criticizes when applied to shastra. It also has nothing to do with a proper transmission of parampara knowledge.

[Guruvani 0]

I think that Muralidhar's request for archaeological evidence of the Kimpurusa race having lived in South India is totally off-the-wall.

 

We don't even have archaeological evidence of Dwaraka or so many other things described 5000 years ago in Krishna lila, much less anything archaeological from Ramayana that supposedly happened millions of years ago.

 

I can't comprehend how Muralidhar could propose such a bizarre request in his attempt to prove his theory about the so-called radical claims of Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

For Saraswati Thakur to publish Sri Krishna Samhita is not his absolute statement that everything in the book is perfectly correct, but probably more along the lines that he simply was not concerned to hide anything about the life, the study and the teachings of Bhaktivinode.

 

Bhaktivinode prayed like a Christian at times in his life.

Bhaktivinode was a follower of Brahmoism at one time is his life.

Bhaktivinode was not a vegetarian at times in his life.

 

We can't take everything in the life of Bhaktivinode as some absolute standard.

If we are supposed to accept everything Bhaktivinode said and did even before he took diksha and accepted his siksha guru, then that is a statement that diksha is not necessary and everything acharyas do in their whole life is to be accepted as absolute, even if it does not jive with shastra.

 

To get into this conception that Valmiki was some joker who wrote falsities about the characters of Ramayan who were actually just tribal people from South India, is a very dangerous course.

 

Srila Prabhupada never proposed such a radical conception and I don't think he would approve of it either.

 

None of the great Goswamis of the Gaudiya sampradaya have ever objected to anything in the depictions of the Ramayan of Valmiki.

 

Broadcasting these bizarre interpretations of the teachings of Bhaktivinode is just going to make a controversial parivar (Saraswata) even more controversial.

I don't see any reason or any purpose in promoting these radical claims.

 

Srila Prabhupada certainly never presented anything like that.

I think we should just keep these kinds of claims to ourselves, as the Saraswata sampradaya doesn't need any more controversy or scandal than it already has.

[shiva 0]

 

That's fine Prabhu

 

It is worth checking out the whole of the Sri Krishna Samhita so you can get a good idea about what Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur was thinking.

 

I have put the whole of the book online here:

SriKrishnaSamhita

 

 

Here is some more interesting info from Sri Krishna Samhita:

 

 

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura suggests that the Aryans came to India from some country to the North West.

 

Well...no. He wrote:

 

 

In the description of Devi's tirtha near Kashmir in the Mahabharata (Vana-parva 82.102) it is stated:

 

prasutir yatra vipranam sruyate bharatarsabha

 

"It is said that brahmanas first came into existence at that place."

 

He is saying they came from Devi's tirtha near Kashmir according to the Mahabharata. Remember, an aryan in the vedic sense is someone who follows the vedic religion. What the Mahabharata is saying is that the original brahmanas, or the original vedic rishis came from there. It's not meant in the sense of an aryan invasion theory, rather it is saying that the first brahmana or brahmanas who taught vedic knowledge came from somewhere in the Himalayan range near Kashmir.

[theist 1]

 

Dont get me wrong: I simply LOVE a lot of the stuff he wrote and said. For me it is not "all, or nothing". Yet I find some of his pronouncements to be mere speculations and (as he himself admits) conjectures subject to corrections as needed.

 

What I find really disturbing is devotees in our lineage projecting an image of "absolute truthfulness" to his writings, in line with the motto "a devotee of such caliber is never wrong". This is exactly the same blind faith that Bhaktivinoda criticizes when applied to shastra. It also has nothing to do with a proper transmission of parampara knowledge.

 

I agree. While certainly no expert in all things Bhaktivinode the one thing that sticks with me is his consistent exhortation "to go there" ourselves, to enter into the divine wholehearted ourselves, and not be satisified just thoughtlessly parroting predessor acarya's and sages.

 

I feel free to respectfully question everything the acaryas say as evidenced from this very thread. To be a blind believer is not my goal in life.

 

While I believe the highest of all knowledge is presernt in GV theology I also believe there is a good deal of implausable "periferal" beliefs that are open to serious question and need not be accepted as they have no real barring on Absolute Truth.

[Guruvani 0]

 

While I believe the highest of all knowledge is presernt in GV theology I also believe there is a good deal of implausable "periferal" beliefs that are open to serious question and need not be accepted as they have no real barring on Absolute Truth.

 

Personally, I think any and all concern with Jesus is about as "peripheral" as you can get and certainly amongst the slag we need to rid ourselves of if we want to get to the core of spiritual cultivation.

 

If you suggest that there is much in the Gaudiya shastra that we can cut loose, I would suggest that before we get to cutting away portions of the authorized scriptures we should cut away all the slag of sentimental rubbish we have picked-up from unauthorized scriptures.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

What I find really disturbing is devotees in our lineage projecting an image of "absolute truthfulness" to his writings, in line with the motto "a devotee of such caliber is never wrong". This is exactly the same blind faith that Bhaktivinoda criticizes when applied to shastra. It also has nothing to do with a proper transmission of parampara knowledge.

 

Kula Prabhu don't get me wrong either. I feel exactly the same way. Exactly.

 

What I find wonderful is that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur shows us it is OK to question things that other people say cannot be questioned. He shows us it is OK if we start wondering and seeking answers when the things in shastra seem perplexing. As in the case that Theist mentioned where he said about the 4 billion bodyguards.

 

Bhaktivinode Thakur said himself that his speculations were just that. So if we find ourselves speculating some times then we don't have to feel that we are "evil".

[gHari 0]

18.66 is beautifully preached in the Sermon of the Mount. Essence seekers can easily see the truth in both. There needs to be no further discussion. The gospel message is the essence of the Gita. The son tells the same truth as the Father ... or he is not a son.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Kula Prabhu don't get me wrong either. I feel exactly the same way. Exactly.

 

What I find wonderful is that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur shows us it is OK to question things that other people say cannot be questioned. He shows us it is OK if we start wondering and seeking answers when the things in shastra seem perplexing. As in the case that Theist mentioned where he said about the 4 billion bodyguards.

 

Bhaktivinode Thakur said himself that his speculations were just that. So if we find ourselves speculating some times then we don't have to feel that we are "evil".

 

When it comes to astrophysics, the speculations of somebody like Stephen Hawking are given a lot of respect and serious consideration, unlike my own speculations.

 

When it comes to the Absolute Truth, the self-acknowledged speculations of somebody like Thakur Bhaktivinoda are of utmost interest to the sincere seeker.

 

So, Muralidhar Prabhu, of course you are right. We can also muse on the nature of Reality as Bhaktivinoda has. We can also try to cultivate his mood of utmost humility.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Going back to Theist Prabhu's initial question...

 

I recently read the Wikipedia article on Carl Linnaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaeus), known as the "father of modern taxonomy", who devised the current binomial nomenclature used in science to identify species.

 

Apparently, his work was not without some controversy. See the section called "Mankind" for his proposals to classify humans in four sub-groups based on what could be considered racist assumptions.

 

Any system of taxonomy will, by necessity, be somewhat arbitrary in its delineations.

 

So, we can understand the 8,400,000 species number to be yet another arbitrary system of classification. Yet, Srila Prabhupada seems very certain that this is the number (which indicates that it may not be arbitrary).

 

Another thing to consider is: what about extinction? When the dodo bird became extinct, were there suddenly 8,399,999 species of life in the universe? If not, then, perhaps that number is not so arbitrary, but can be seen as a sort of cosmological constant (like dimensions appear to be).

 

As my stepfather pointed out, numerologically, 8,400,000 reduces to 3 (8 + 4 = 12; 1 + 2 = 3), which is a cosmically significant number: electron, neutron, proton; quantum spin states (up, down, superposition of both); etc.

 

Perhaps there are 8,400,000 *archetypes* for life forms.

 

It's fun to speculate, but, in the end, unless we are rocket scientists or authors of farmer's almanacs, what difference does it make in our daily lives and spiritual practices whether or not the moon is closer to the earth than the sun?

[Guest guest]

 

What I find wonderful is that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur shows us it is OK to question things that other people say cannot be questioned. He shows us it is OK if we start wondering and seeking answers when the things in shastra seem perplexing. As in the case that Theist mentioned where he said about the 4 billion bodyguards.

 

 

In some ways the current orthodoxy of our movement (and I dont mean that this is just Iskcon's problem) is seriously hampering the spread of Lord Caitanya's mission. Many devotees - both young and old - are choking with the rigidity of "only permissible" interpretations, especially when they see that this approach is not a practical answer to the challenges facing us. That is the real risk of overly authoritarian lineages. When you think that your guru can never be wrong on anything you dont even try to make corrections which are obviously neccessary and the mission falters.

 

Like the guys preparing to build a planetarium who cant make up their mind whether the Moon is closer to Earth, or the Sun... it's a total joke.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

What the Mahabharata is saying is that the original brahmanas, or the original vedic rishis came from there. It's not meant in the sense of an aryan invasion theory, rather it is saying that the first brahmana or brahmanas who taught vedic knowledge came from somewhere in the Himalayan range near Kashmir.

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 Thakura Bhaktivinoda

"One who lives in Kuruksetra, which is south of the Sarasvati River and north of the Drsadvati River, lives in heaven." By discussing the meaning of the name "Brahmavarta" it is assumed that the Aryans came from another country to reside therein. We cannot ascertain exactly where they came from, but it is believed that they came from some northwest country. In the description of Devi's tirtha near Kashmir in the Mahabharata (Vana-parva 82.102) it is stated:

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

 

What I feel is that it doesn't matter one way or the other whether there was an Aryan invasion.

 

Bhaktivinode Thakura has given his opinion that maybe something like that happened.

 

Devotees who want to fight against science are "wild goose chasing" in my opinion.

 

Frankly I don't care if Hanuman etc were men or monkeys. And in Sri Krishna Samhita we find Bhaktivinode Thakura saying the "descent of the Ganges" story of King Bhagirathi represents not the bringing of the Ganges to the sea but the bringing of the Aryan culture from "Aryavarta" (uttara pradhesh) to the sea in Bengal. This, and many other things Bhaktivinode Thakura says in Sri Krishna Samhita, are not "articles of faith" for me. What these things do for me is make me realize that I don't need to worry one way or the other whether scientific or "fundamentalist" ideas are the right ideas.

 

Bhaktivinode Thakur has presented a way of thinking about history and science which makes those topics separate from spirituality. He goes on to talk about spirituality in great depth in Sri Krishna Samhita.

 

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

[theist 1]

 

Going back to Theist Prabhu's initial question...

 

I recently read the Wikipedia article on Carl Linnaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaeus), known as the "father of modern taxonomy", who devised the current binomial nomenclature used in science to identify species.

 

Apparently, his work was not without some controversy. See the section called "Mankind" for his proposals to classify humans in four sub-groups based on what could be considered racist assumptions.

 

Any system of taxonomy will, by necessity, be somewhat arbitrary in its delineations.

 

So, we can understand the 8,400,000 species number to be yet another arbitrary system of classification. Yet, Srila Prabhupada seems very certain that this is the number (which indicates that it may not be arbitrary).

 

Another thing to consider is: what about extinction? When the dodo bird became extinct, were there suddenly 8,399,999 species of life in the universe? If not, then, perhaps that number is not so arbitrary, but can be seen as a sort of cosmological constant (like dimensions appear to be).

 

As my stepfather pointed out, numerologically, 8,400,000 reduces to 3 (8 + 4 = 12; 1 + 2 = 3), which is a cosmically significant number: electron, neutron, proton; quantum spin states (up, down, superposition of both); etc.

 

Perhaps there are 8,400,000 *archetypes* for life forms.

 

It's fun to speculate, but, in the end, unless we are rocket scientists or authors of farmer's almanacs, what difference does it make in our daily lives and spiritual practices whether or not the moon is closer to the earth than the sun?

 

 

Archetypes....hmmm? Never thought of that. That has some very obvious and heavy metaphysical implications. I woul;dn't even know how to begin looking in to that one but if there is something there perhaps the Lord will reveal it someday.

 

Another possibility is that the number is just wrong. It may have sounded like a big number back then but certainly not now. What I wonder is why are these types of statements even made at all with such seeming authority. I would much rather just hear about the nature of transcendence without all these so-called authoritative descriptions of universal affairs that appear to be less than authoritative. It just confuses things.

[Guruvani 0]

It's quite amuzing to see devotees separating what part of the Gaudiya or Vedic canon they accept as real and what part they accept as fantasy.

 

We have no proof of any of it.

It all sounds quite fantastic and mythological.

 

It's just really funny to see devotees separating what part of the mythology they accept as real and what part they want to label as fiction.

 

Picking and choosing what part of these scriptures we accept and what part we reject is a mind game that ends up in a lot of confusion and quarrel.

 

Maybe we should just try to find the spiritual element in all of it instead of trying to label part of it as history and part of it as mythology.

 

It's all got a spiritual meaning and spiritual purpose.

 

Our problem is that we want to get all mental about it and start picking and choosing to suit our personal preferences.

 

Where will it all end?

Probably in a condition of weakened faith on the mental platfrom.

 

It's all fantastic.

 

Separating one part as acceptable and another as unacceptable is a losing proposition.

 

IMHO

[theist 1]

As to archealogical evidence. Why not ask for suchevidence. The lack of fossil records disproves Darwinian evolulution and I see no reason why it is off limits to seek similar to clarify statements in the Vedas Puranas Mahabharta and Ramayana.

 

Where are the ruins of Dwarka? Where are the artifcats from the war at Kurukshetra (18(?) million dead humans, plus elephants and chariots swords spears and battle dress. Should be one of the most dramatic archeaological fields in human history.

 

None of this affects my faith one way or another. I don't care if it is all just a literary vehicle by which Krsna chose to tell His story through some inspired transcendenatlists.

 

The reality of Krsna consciousness is not diminished in the least if the battle of kurukshetra didn't really take place in our 3d reality or not. I personally don't think it did. Krsna is still there in Bhagavad-gita and we as little Arjunas can come to know Him and become His devotees just by hearing Bhagavad-gita.

 

Do you think differently? No problem for me. I feel no need to persuade anyone.

 

One of the reasons we are reluctantant to question these things is that we fear the truth may ruin our faith. My point is if we are thinking like that then we don't have any genuine faith to lose in the first place. What we have is fear masquerading as faith. Better to rip that mask off and come face to face with the reality of the situation. IMO of course.