Rahu at it again?.... or going beyond myth?

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

It looks like Rahu has swallowed our minds!!

 

We're a bunch of lunatics!

[Guruvani 0]

 

It looks like Rahu has swallowed our minds!!

 

We're a bunch of lunatics!

yep, your avatar/icon is a DEAD giveaway!!!

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

yep, your avatar/icon is a DEAD giveaway!!!

 

That, or I had too much Varuni at the Ashram last night (we celebrated Balarama Purnima last night (yeah, I know most folks in the USA celebrated the day before))!!

 

The Varuni was fresh (no time to ferment, but still intoxicating!) and was made with honey from the beehives in the Ashram orchard!!! Yummmmmmyyy!!

[theist 1]

 

I never accused you of employing circular logic. I merely pointed out that exercises in reasoning are often (if not always) futile ultimately when trying to comprehend things of a cosmic nature.

 

You are right that what matters is the essence.

 

At the same time, nobody is going to be eager to eat a handful of vitamins for dinner--even if they contain all the "essential" vitamins and minerals. We all hanker for some *flavor*.

 

There's a Spanish word "sabor" (savor?). Life is all about el sabor (accent above the "o", I believe). That's true for spiritual life as well as material life--Rasa anybody?

 

Whimsy is all about el sabor.

 

I forgot that for some years. I still forget from time to time.

And flavor is what couching all these transcendental gems in the midst of so many stories is all about. This has long been my point. Gajendra is described as King of the elephants and his position is colorfully explained how he is surrounded by shelephants etc. then his leg gets grabbed by the supercroc and he begins to pray. To me that is where the real teaching is. His prayers and the Lord's responses. I don't need a real Gajendra and a real croc to have been historical personalities I just need the truth that is in the prayers and the Lord's responses.

 

Did Vyasadeva read ancient accounts and then transcribe them or did he use the storyline technique to maintain our interest and as a vehicle to pass on essential truth. I lean toward the latter but could be wrong. It is irrelevant either way except when presenting SB to others especially in the academic community.

[Guruvani 0]

 

It is irrelevant either way except when presenting SB to others especially in the academic community.

Srimad Bhagavatam is a post-graduate study for the Vaishnava.

Srimad Bhagavatam has never been a curiousity for the academics to dabble in.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam is for the faithful and devoted.

 

What academic would believe any part of Srimad Bhagavatam?

 

As if there are parts they believe and parts they don't?

[mahak 0]

There is nothing in SB for the academics. This is why Srila Prabhupada emphasizes "AS IT IS", and also emphasizes that commentary that changes shastra is useless. So when we cross the bridge to accept SB as allegorical stories, we have crossed a big bridge, indeed. Now we cannot intellectually compromise by accepting ANY of the stories as actually happening. So we are left with SB as being a mythological thesis, like the Iliad and the Odyessy, Jason and the Argonauts or the Hobbit. We are stuck in the world where magic is debunked, the only power and glory is human. This is actually the world of secular humanism, atheism, meaning that we believe that if we cannot comprehend, then such things are impossible.

So I just dont go there. Rahu gobbles up the moon, and it comes out his neck. It is no stretch. Arjuna can shoot 100 arrows from his Gandiva and hit 100 different targets simultaneously. This is not less fantastic than the Rahu story. If I dont accept Rahu, how can I accept Vasudeva breaking out of prison with a baby boy, travelling miles and entering anothers house, taking anothers newborn daughter, then going back to prison. The myth of the matsya, kurma, and varaha incarnations?

No, I dont believe in mythology, none of it. The story of hercules is true, only the secular humanists debunk the son of Zeus because they cant do it, so they, believing they are the supreme intellect, conclude that such a thing cannot be done. I fully believe the story of the birth of Mexico, the battle between the great eagle and the serpant (which is actually mentioned in SB in the story of the Kaliya Serpant, where Garuda tells of his continual battle with the Naga race). I believe the story of the great demigod, Popocateptyl, who after tens of thousands of years, rests with his wife and occasionally blows off some steam. The sun is the god on a chariot, named Surya and vivasvan by one culture, named Maui by another.

I used this story on another forum when one said hindus worship many gods. I said hindus were ants, who view the dog as nothing to mess with, someone whose unlimited powers could not ever be understood by the ant, therefore this must be god. However, there was one ant, the narada muni ant, who noticed something about Sri Dog because he had meditated on the dog better than others. He noticed that the dog was not really a master, but a servant, and then concluded that he could go far beyond the religion of the ants by worshipping the person Sri Dog worships, Sri Man.

We are ants, all of us. The activities of the suras and asuras happen on a plane where we cannot even conceive of. So what we really need to do is to fing the ant who knows about the multi dimensional and multiversal worlds, and inquire from him. WE accept his truth, or we debunk his stories as myth. But the latter makes us reallyt stuck in ant world where our best hope is to carry that grain of farina for the rest of our lives.

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

I disagree. The Topics of Godhead are just as much for the academics as anyone else. The scientists also. No one is excluded. Just by accepting every myth as reality itself does not give one a monoploy on the truths of God. how arrogant to think so.

 

The ones who try to disseminate the knowledge of the Bhagavatam have the responsibility to present it in a way that is most attractive to the one they are trying to reach.

 

This is why it is best to approach the scientific and academic types with no more than knowledge pointing to the distinction between matter and spirit, between consciousness and unconsciousness matter. That and when speaking of God the emphasis should be on Krsna the Intelligent Designer behind the cosmic manifestation and not get caught up in useless talk about Rahu and one sun in the 5 billion mile wide universe which we know no person with a $50 Meade telescope will accept. To a biologist Krsna is Supreme Biologist and not on the little blue boy who played with His friends in the enchanted forest and killed giant demons. That is higher rasa and should be held in reserve for the right audience. To an artist Krsna is the Supreme Artist with a sunset being a small sample of His palate from which he colors the universe. Rodin has nothing on His mastery as a sculpter.

 

He is also the Master story teller and Author who is able to fascinate the children with stories while imparting higher truth for their benefit and Who can reach the more sophsticated through parable and fable which carry deep instructions on how to live ones life.

 

y/s the piss ant

[Guruvani 0]

 

I disagree. The Topics of Godhead are just as much for the academics as anyone else. The scientists also. No one is excluded.

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.131

 

 

The Vedic injunction states, bhaktyā bhāgavataḿ grāhyaḿ na buddhyā na ca ṭīkayā. One has to understand Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam through the process of devotional service and by hearing the recitation of a pure devotee. These are the injunctions of the Vedic literature — śruti and smṛti. Those who are not in the disciplic succession and who are not pure devotees cannot understand the real mysterious objective of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā.

The "mysterious objective" of Srimad Bhagavatam can NEVER be appreciated by an academic.

 

(unless the academic has some spiritual tendency)

 

The ISKCON lawyer Mrgindra das was a homeless person eating out of garbage cans when he first met devotees and joined the temple.

Krishna consciousness elevated him up to the point to where he became fit to pass law school and eventually become a lawyer for ISKCON.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

This is actually the world of secular humanism, atheism, meaning that we believe that if we cannot comprehend, then such things are impossible.

 

You raise an interesting point. The humanists are often guilty of a sort of "irrational exuberance" in their beliefs in the power of reason and humanity.

 

Albert Camus, in "The Plague" points out that the basic premise of humanism--that humans can accomplish just about anything and overcome any natural obstacles--collapses in the face of pestilence (like the plague, or AIDS and Bird Flu today).

 

Just when we think we have it all figured out, the Universe will throw us a curve ball to remind us just how small (and ant-like) we are.

[theist 1]

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.131

 

 

The "mysterious objective" of Srimad Bhagavatam can NEVER be appreciated by an academic.

 

(unless the academic has some spiritual tendency)

 

The ISKCON lawyer Mrgindra das was a homeless person eating out of garbage cans when he first met devotees and joined the temple.

Krishna consciousness elevated him up to the point to where he became fit to pass law school and eventually become a lawyer for ISKCON.

 

Yeah it can't be understood by 60's hippies either. But by hearing the devotional side from a devotee the mystery starts to be revealed.That hearing is the source of the spiritual tendency. So all I am saying is the devotee must know his audience for his guidance to be accepted.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Yeah it can't be understood by 60's hippies either. But by hearing the devotional side from a devotee the mystery starts to be revealed.That hearing is the source of the spiritual tendency. So all I am saying is the devotee must know his audience for his guidance to be accepted.

 

To me the purport quoted is saying that without service and submission to the guru the mysteries of the Bhagavatam cannot be understood by an academic approach.

But, of course, reading the books of Srila Prabhupada is part of the service of hearing from the pure devotee.

But, the hearing must be done with submission and reverence or the reader will simply find it to be myth and fable without spiritual substance.

 

If there is no submission and surrender to the reading of the books, the reader will not understand.

 

There has to be an element of bhakti there or the reading will not produce fruit.

[theist 1]

 

To me the purport quoted is saying that without service and submission to the guru the mysteries of the Bhagavatam cannot be understood by an academic approach.

But, of course, reading the books of Srila Prabhupada is part of the service of hearing from the pure devotee.

But, the hearing must be done with submission and reverence or the reader will simply find it to be myth and fable without spiritual substance.

 

If there is no submission and surrender to the reading of the books, the reader will not understand.

 

There has to be an element of bhakti there or the reading will not produce fruit.

 

Yes no arguement. But that understanding grows with time, association and developing taste. We can't just demand that people submit. Krsna is all attractive. So the devotee acting as helper to krsna must present Him in a way that will be most attractive. The way to reach a person's mind is through their already establish interests and tendencies. They can be reached as a scholar, medical practioner, artist, muscian, poet, astro-physicist, laborer, child or whatever.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Absolutely. We've heard many times, haven't we, that it is a "heart to heart transaction"?

 

 

Yes no arguement. But that understanding grows with time, association and developing taste. We can't just demand that people submit. Krsna is all attractive. So the devotee acting as helper to krsna must present Him in a way that will be most attractive. The way to reach a person's mind is through their already establish interests and tendencies. They can be reached as a scholar, medical practioner, artist, muscian, poet, astro-physicist, laborer, child or whatever.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Yes no arguement. But that understanding grows with time, association and developing taste. We can't just demand that people submit. Krsna is all attractive. So the devotee acting as helper to krsna must present Him in a way that will be most attractive. The way to reach a person's mind is through their already establish interests and tendencies. They can be reached as a scholar, medical practioner, artist, muscian, poet, astro-physicist, laborer, child or whatever.

 

Even though devotees distributed Bhagavatam and even CC on the streets of the USA and other countries, those books are really for devotees.

 

In principle, a person should first study, understand and accept the basic KC philosophy of Bhagavad Gita before he goes to read or study such elevated literatures as Bhagavatam and CC.

 

If a person can accept and appreciate the Bhagavad Gita of Sri Krishna, then he can go on to more advanced studies.

 

If a person has not studied and accepted the conclusions of Bhagavad Gita, then he really should not be delving into Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

This was the system that Srila Prabhupada expressed in his books, even though in ISKCON these elevated books were being sold on the streets and in airports to common people who many times just dropped the book in the nearest trash can.

 

We can't always consider the ISKCON of the ambitious disciples of Srila Prabhupada as the actual ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada wanted.

 

The mistakes of the past cannot be used as standard for all time.

Eventually, the neophyte, novice, ambitious ISKCON has to get past these stages and move forward to what is proper for the present time.