Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Bhakta Don Muntean

The Origins of the Satan Myth and impact to global politics

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

it certainly is a case of summoning demons from the underworld to do your bidding. vedic brahmanas traded their good karma for that service. I'm not sure what the good rabbe had to offer in trade. these folks dont work for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that that is obvious - if you look into what Krishna says about worshippers in the three modes - you will have your answer.

 

These extremists that are trying to curse sharon are not any better than any other extremist - this practice isn't a part of the mainstream.

 

Anyone who would do that is a fool - and I am sure that this process they used is some hodge-podge nonsense.

 

In any case you again failed to go over any of my points in your reply - you again brought up another point - so what is the point?

 

This discussion is one sided.

 

So I think you can go on ignoring everything - or you can at least address the points Prabhupada has made....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the pages on this site dealing with 'left handed tantrics' - I was quite disgusted by that - what is this tantrics - but a vedic [?] form of witchcraft?

 

For every supposed ugly point you levy at this group - I counter it with a similar point from our tradition.

 

All five world faiths have these kuli yuga issues - but you are not being fair to that fact.

 

As for actually being able to summon a demon etc., I do not think it's all that possible in all the cases we hear of it going on. To do that one must be qualified - just like with everything really occultic.

 

Would you say that mother kali is a demon? Her servants may be demoniac - but is She a demon too? No. Many outsiders consider Shiva to be satan - even has a pitchfork and snake around his neck - of course when you tell these same people that the snake is God - they really freak - so if you still don't get the point - then really - I think it's because you are rejecting it in favor of bashing the jewish tradition.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon, once vindictively caused a man too be put to death, merely because he had spoken of him as Vinegar the son of Wine, a round-about way of reproaching him that he was the bad son of a good father, though it turned out afterward that the condemned man deserved death for a crime that he was not known to be guilty of at the time of his execution; yet the mind of the Rabbi was ill at ease, and he voluntarily did penance by subjecting himself in a peculiar fashion to great bodily suffering. Sixty woolen cloths were regularly spread under him every night, and these were found soaked in the morning with his profuse perspiration. The result of this was greater and greater bodily prostration, which his wife strove, as related above, day after day to repair, detaining him from college, lest the debates there should prove too much for his weakened frame. When his wife found that he persisted in courting these sufferings, and that her tender care, as well as her own patrimony, were being lavished on him in vain, she tired of her assiduity, and left him to his fate. And now, waited on by some sailors, who believed they owed to him deliverance from a watery grave, he was free to do as he liked. One day, being ministered to by them after a night's perspiration of the kind referred to, he went straight to college, and there decided sixty doubtful cases against the unanimous dissent of the assembly. Providential circumstances, which happened afterward, both proved that he was right in his judgment and that his wife was wrong in suffering her fondness for him to stand in the way of the performance of his public duties….” [ Bava Metzia, fol. 85, col. 2.]

 

What is the point? Do you see the point? Not that I am saying these extremists who cursed Mr. Sharon are of the nature of “Rabbi Elazar”! Nor am I saying that Mr. Sharon is deserving of a curse.

 

The point is - you render a surface statement and - force a far-reaching interpretation.

 

When theist posted the point about cruel king vena and - the cursing - that led to his end – that was a very good point – like the point noted here.

 

First point to see about any curse – it must be deserved in the karma – or it will not work.

 

That fact is noted in the quote above. We have only to look into such things and compare them openly – within context and - we can see thus see these common patterns present in all the five traditions.

 

“…Then the angel of death was sent for to bring him up, but he was unable to approach him, because the Rabbi's lips never ceased repeating the law of the Lord. The angel of death thereupon assumed the appearance of a troop of cavalry, and the Rabbi, apprehensive of being seized and carried off, exclaimed, "I would rather die through that one (meaning the angel of death) than be delivered into the hands of the Government!"…” [bava Metzia, fol. 86, col. 1.]

 

I like that one. These angels of death are not demons – despite how you make it sound.

 

Are the agents of Yamaraja demons? If you read Talmud in proper context you would see that Yamadhutas are - the angels of death.

 

"And the Lord put a word in Balaam 's mouth" (Num. xxiii. 5). An angel took up his seat in Balaam's throat, so that when he wished to bless, the angel permitted him, but when he desired to curse, the angel tickled his throat and stopped him. "Word" in this place means simply an angel; as it is said (Ps. cvii. 20), "He sent His word and healed them." Rabbi Yochanan says, "There was an iron nail in his throat which permitted him when he wished to bless, but rasped his throat and prevented him when about to curse.Word" in this place means only an iron nail; for it is said (Num. xxxi. 23), "Every thing (or word, for the original has both meanings) that may abide the fire." Ibid…." [Midrash Shemoth, chap. 23.]

 

 

Here are two nice Talmudic Proverbial Sayings

 

Who gains wisdom? He who is willing to receive instruction from all sources. Who is the mighty man? He who subdueth his temper. Who is rich? He who is content with his lot. Who is deserving of honor? He who honoreth mankind.

 

Despise no man and deem nothing impossible; every man hath his hour and everything its place.”

 

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

 

A very wealthy man, who was of a kind, benevolent disposition, desired to make his slave happy. He gave him, therefore, his freedom, and presented him with a shipload of merchandise.

 

"Go," said he, "sail to different countries, dispose of these goods, and that which thou mayest receive for them shall be thy own."

 

The slave sailed away upon the broad ocean, but before he had been long upon his voyage a storm overtook him; his ship was driven on a rock and went to pieces; all on board were lost, all save this slave, who swam to an island shore near by. Sad, despondent, with naught in the world, he traversed this island, until he approached a large and beautiful city; and many people approached him joyously, shouting, "Welcome! welcome! Long live the king!" They brought a rich carriage, and placing him therein, escorted him to a magnificent palace, where many servants gathered about him, clothing him in royal garments, addressing him as their sovereign, and expressing their obedience to his will.

 

The slave was amazed and dazzled, believing that he was dreaming, and all that he saw, heard, and experienced was mere passing fantasy. Becoming convinced of the reality of his condition, he said to some men about him for whom he experienced a friendly feeling:--

 

"How is this? I cannot understand it. That you should thus elevate and honor a man whom you know not, a poor, naked wanderer, whom you have never seen before, making him your ruler, causes me more wonder than I can readily express."

 

"Sire," they replied, "this island is inhabited by spirits. Long since they prayed to God to send them yearly a son of man to reign over them, and He has answered their prayers. Yearly He sends them a son of man, whom they receive with honor and elevate to the throne; but his dignity and power ends with the year. With its close his royal garments are taken from him, he is placed on board

 

a ship and carried to a vast and desolate island, where, unless he has previously been wise and prepared for this day, he will find neither friend nor subject, and be obliged to pass a weary, lonely, miserable life. Then a new king is selected, and so year follows year. The kings who preceded thee were careless and indifferent, enjoying their power to the full, and thinking not of the day when it should end. Be wiser thou; let our words find rest within thy heart."

 

The newly-made king listened attentively to all this, and felt grieved that he should have lost even the time he had already missed for making preparations for his loss of power.

 

He addressed the wise man who had spoken, saying, "Advise me, oh, spirit of wisdom, how I may prepare for the days which will come upon me in the future."

 

"Naked thou camest to us and naked thou wilt be sent to the desolate island of which I have told thee," replied the other. "At present thou art king, and may do as pleaseth thee; therefore send workmen to this island; let them build houses, till the ground, and beautify the surroundings. The barren soil will be changed into fruitful fields, people will journey there to live, and thou wilt have established a new kingdom for thyself, with subjects to welcome thee in gladness when thou shalt have lost thy power here. The year is short, the work is long: therefore be earnest and energetic."

 

The king followed this advice. He sent workmen and materials to the desolate island, and before the close of his temporary power it had become a blooming, pleasant, and attractive spot. The rulers who had preceded him had anticipated the day of their power's close with dread, or smothered all thought of it in revelry; but he looked forward to it as a day of joy, when he should enter upon a career of permanent peace and happiness.

 

The day came; the freed slave, who had been made king, was deprived of his authority; with his power he lost his royal garments; naked he was placed upon a ship, and its sails set for the desolate isle.

 

When he approached its shores, however, the people whom he had sent there came to meet him with music, song, and great joy. They made him a prince among them, and he lived with them ever after in pleasantness and peace.

 

The wealthy man of kindly disposition is God, and the slave to whom He gave freedom is the soul which He gives to man. The island at which the slave arrives is the world; naked and weeping he appears to his parents, who are inhabitants that greet him warmly and make him their king. The friends who tell him of the ways of the country are his "good inclinations." The year of his reign is his span of life, and the desolate island is the future world, which he must beautify by good deeds, "the workmen and material," or else live lonely and desolate forever.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted:

 

If we need an alternate historic example - let's look at how the white christians looked at the non-christians all around the world - look how everyone not white and saved - was a savage - everything about them their culture and spiritual understandings - were viewed as savage and satanic - and to be thus changed or - wiped out.

 

Just see the desolation of entire peoples - based on 'this form' of christianity.

 

Reply:

 

I should have said SOME "...white christians..." - I did say "this form of" - so I am not castignating all christians [past and present] in this light.

 

I just wanted to say that.

 

BDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

<blockquote>

Quote:

 

However, we find that in the old testament Yahweh was advocating genocide.

 

Reply:

 

Yahweh certainly is a different 'rasa' than Krishna [i used to think He was Lord Shiva] – but according to Prabhupada - He is Vishnu and I wonder - why you didn't comment on the Prabhupada quotes in my post?

 

</blockquote>

Srila Prabhupada expressed his views in his books, and I respect his views given the fact that Krishna empowered him to take the Holy Name all over the world. I first met Srila Prabhupada face to face in 1972... It seems so long ago, now.

 

I must say, however, that at some point I realized Srila Prabhupada is not omniscient. And of course, this is a widely understood fact within ISKCON now. I have faith in Srila Prabhupada but I don't necessarily agree with every statement he made. Especially when his statements are contrary to the direct statements of other Acharyas, such as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, who said some very definite things about Christianity. When I see a difference, I just accept that Srila Prabhupada was "Krishna's pure devotee" working in a specific place at a specific time, but that the ultimate philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism may sometimes be a little different from what Srila Prabhupada preached to hippies in the 1960's and 70's.

 

The religion of Sri Rupa Goswami and Sri Chaitanyadeva is a transcendental spiritual path, and from where I'm standing it certainly looks like the religion of the Bible is for people whose karma is holding them back from attaining proper spiritual understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

I first met Srila Prabhupada face to face in 1972... It seems so long ago, now.

 

I must say, however, that at some point I realized Srila Prabhupada is not omniscient. And of course, this is a widely understood fact within ISKCON now. I have faith in Srila Prabhupada but I don't necessarily agree with every statement he made. Especially when his statements are contrary to the direct statements of other Acharyas, such as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, who said some very definite things about Christianity.

 

Reply:

 

I have a very close associate - who is also an original Prabhupada disciple - she does not agree with your quantification of Srila Prabhupada's message.

 

Of course - that's your interpretation [for whatever reason] – but - clearly Prabhupada expected us NOT to reject ANY part of his Teachings.

 

He knows that it is kuli yuga - and His preaching is ‘so ordered’ - whether it was preached to “hippies” or not - isn't a substantive point to be considered.

 

I pray you've not made some offence to Prabhupada [in a little way] -.as you’ve had personal dharshan with Him - “…so long ago…”. You could have it every day ever fresh – if it seems so long ago then something is interrupting your association with Srila Prabhupada.

 

I beg to know - who are you - why haven't you stated that?

 

As for the divergence of points about Christianity preached by Srila Prabhupada as contrasted to those of Srila Bhaktivinode - well I wonder - is it you who seeing contradictions - based on personal preferences - as opposed to seeing the modes in action - in terms of the modes of each particular follower of any particular faiths.

 

If there is a disparity in understandings - it should be really understood in context of the modes of material nature.

 

Otherwise any evaluations are limited.

 

Prabhupada was most often critical of the followers - not the path.

 

I beg to hear of your Transcendental Interactions with Prabhupada…

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Don,

 

What is all this talk about anyhow?

 

I thought you were of the opinion that Satan is a myth and that the Biblical idea of "satan" and hell so on are just made up stories. But now it seems that you are arguing that the prophets of Israel were really in touch with God, and that they could understand His wishes. If that is what you think, then that's fine. Halleluyah Brother!

 

But you must appreciate that many Vaishnava Acharyas, notably Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur, stated quite plainly that the religion of the Bible is a religion of people who are following the path of karma. It is for people who don't really understand God as He really is. That is, they don't understand Krishna at all. They may have a belief in Yahweh and his rival Satan, but they don't understand Krishna at all (except for a few outstanding individual such as Maitreya Christian). Maitreya is a different case. But the followers of Abraham's religions almost to a man are men who speak negatively of Sri Krishna. It is a fact.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

What is all this talk about anyhow?

 

Reply:

 

Read back and see the original posting [07/21/05 08:33 AM] of Suchandra about the Talmud - all this part of this discussion is a defense of Talmud and Torah and the Hebrew Tradition.

 

It has made for some interesting discussions – the interaction is quite heartfelt - that is for sure...

 

Quote:

 

But now it seems that you are arguing that the prophets of Israel were really in touch with God, and that they could understand His wishes.

 

Reply:

 

Surely they were - but the post interpolation prophets knew Satan was a fiction that was interpolated as an allegory - they understood that he wasn't real.

 

But the prophets were most certainly connected to and - serving the Mission of Vishnu/Yahweh/Allah.

 

Quote:

 

…the religion of the Bible is a religion of people who are following the path of karma

 

Reply:

 

That is a matter that is to be understood from the perspective of the modes of nature the particular seeker is in.

 

I will try to present more on this later.

 

Quote:

 

But the followers of Abraham's religions…speak negatively of Sri Krishna. It is a fact.

 

Reply:

 

If you read through these particular messages - you'll see the answer - and again the modes of material nature are quite active on everyone – no matter their faith or race or gender or species no one is exempt - except God.

 

These modes of nature spin everything and everyone we see according to three basic qualities.

 

Are perchance - you a Christian - who respects that Krishna is God?

 

BDM

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[by guest]

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur writes about the Bible

07/29/05 03:20 AM

 

Living in a material world

 

(from Sri Tattva Viveka)

by Sri Bhaktivinode Thakur

 

kecid vadanti visvam vai paresa-nirmitam kila

jivanam sukha-bhogaya dharmaya ca visesatah (24)

 

Some philosophers say God created this world in order to make a place where souls have an opportunity to enjoy happiness or become pious. (24)

 

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

Some philosophers say God created this world to give us an opportunity to enjoy pleasures. They think that after sinlessly enjoying different luxuries and pleasures, people will praise God and perform pious deeds, praising God for his mercy towards them. However, if God really had wanted to create this material world for the soul’s pleasure then surely He would not have created it as it is. This world is a place full of problems, troubles and disasters. If we consider whether or not this world is a place of enjoyment, we cannot but think this world is filled with many horrible defects. God is all-powerful and whatever he wishes to happen is done at once, so surely he would have created the material world as something that functions in a better way if he was making a world where souls will enjoy pleasures. He would have made it as something faultless. And if he created the material world as a place for souls to perform pious deeds, then surely He would have made it very different from the way it is. Of this there is no doubt. Why is there no doubt of this? Because in the material world pious deeds are not easily performed by every soul.

 

adi-jivaparadhad vai sarvesam bandhanam dhruvam

tathanya-jiva-bhutasya vibhor dandena niskritih (25)

 

Some philosophers say that because of the first human being’s sin all the other human beings are imprisoned in the material world. Then, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the living entities from sin.(25)

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

Thinking about the virtues and faults of this world, some moralist monotheists have concluded that this material world is not a place of unalloyed pleasures. Indeed, the sufferings greatly outweigh the pleasures. They have decided that the material world is a prison created for the punishment of humankind. If there is a punishment, then there must be a crime that has been committed. Indeed if there were no crime then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living creatures commit, that they are born into a world of suffering? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. They imagine God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from grace and were expelled from that garden and thrown into this material world which is filled with sufferings. Because of their offence, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offence, God himself took birth in a human form. He took on his own shoulders the sins of his followers, and then died. All who follow him shall easily attain salvation, and all who do not follow him will fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes himself, and liberates humankind.

 

An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this.

 

janmato jiva-sambhavo maranante na janma vai

yat-kritam samsritau tena jivasya caramam phalam (26)

 

These philosophers say that the soul comes into existence at birth. After death, he is not born again on earth. After death he attains either heaven or hell as a result of his actions in that one lifetime. (26)

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

To accept this concocted religion one must first believe in some rather implausible things. The living entity's life begins at birth - before birth the living entity did not exist. After death, the living entity will no longer stay in the world of material activities. Only human beings have souls - other creatures have no soul. But only extremely unintelligent persons believe in this religion. In this religion the living entity is not an eternal, spirit being by nature. God has created the living entities out of matter.

 

Why are the living entities born into very different situations? Some are rich and healthy, some are poor and sickly. The followers of this religion cannot say. Why is one person born into a house filled with sufferings while another takes birth in a house filled with joys? One is born into the house of people devoted to God while another is born in a wicked atheist's family. Why is one person born in a household where he is encouraged to perform pious deeds, and he then goes and performs pious deeds. But another person is born in a family of atheists and is placed in a situation where he is encouraged to sin? He sins and becomes bad, because of his circumstances. The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational, for it is God who decides what sort of life someone will have.

 

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why don’t birds and beasts have souls like the human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life? Bcause of their actions in that one life people are rewarded with eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell. Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable.

 

atra sthitasya jivasya karma-jnananusilanat

visvonnati-vidhanena kartavyam isa-tosanam (27)

 

These people say that by doing work and by accumulating knowledge humankind can make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. (27)

 

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:

The followers of this religion have no tendency to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by doing work and by gaining knowledge one should work to improve the material world, and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good in the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing work (karma) and by engaging in studies and learning (jnana) is very important to them. They show no capacity to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation.

 

Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him anymore." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future.

 

If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world.

 

Ha ha ha [re: Guest]

07/29/05 03:30 AM

 

 

What crime did the living creatures commit, that they are born into a world of suffering? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. They imagine God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from grace and were expelled from that garden and thrown into this material world which is filled with sufferings. Because of their offence, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offence, God himself took birth in a human form. He took on his own shoulders the sins of his followers, and then died. All who follow him shall easily attain salvation, and all who do not follow him will fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes himself, and liberates humankind.

 

An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this.

 

 

 

You could hardly put it more clearly than that, could you?

 

The story of Adam and Eve, and the serpent in the garden, and the story that God needs to be crucified to remove our "sins", are all just stories that men of small intelligence have imagined

Bhaktivinode [re: Guest]

07/29/05 03:36 AM Edit Reply

 

 

 

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why don’t birds and beasts have souls like the human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life? Bcause of their actions in that one life people are rewarded with eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell. Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[my reply]

 

Quote:

 

…concocted religion…The followers of this religion have no tendency to worship God selflessly…

 

Reply:

 

If “the follower” is in the mode of ignorance - there is sure to be concocted religion. – no matter the background - just see He says - “the followers” - that is in keeping with what I say Prabhupada has said:

 

Prabhupada was most often critical of the followers - not the path.

 

Original sin isn’t a Hebrew teaching – that is a later teaching one that comes from the zealot Saul turned St. Paul.

 

The truth is karma and transmigration ARE accepted and taught in the pages of Talmud – and were accepted by early Christians.

 

So I wonder when we read this:

 

“…They imagine God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from grace and were expelled from that garden and thrown into this material world which is filled with sufferings. Because of their offence, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offence, God himself took birth in a human form. He took on his own shoulders the sins of his followers, and then died. All who follow him shall easily attain salvation, and all who do not follow him will fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes himself, and liberates humankind.

 

An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this…”

 

Do we not thus consider that these various garden of Eden points are not accepted as literal by Hebrews.

 

In fact there is a growing movement within Christianity to restore the ‘allegorical interpretation’ to its proper place – as we see a long time extroverted use of literalism with many Christians.

 

That is not dealt with in Bhaktivinode’s essay – are you building your entire case on this one essay? Are there more statements from him on this? This mentions Christianity not Judaism – why is that?

 

---------

 

 

 

Quote:

 

…concocted religion…The followers of this religion have no tendency to worship God selflessly…

 

These words are the direct words of Thakur Bhaktivinode, in Sri Tattva Viveka.

 

Don, understand that Thakur Bhaktivinode stated in black and white, in print, that their religion is a "concocted religion".

 

----

 

Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami: [re: Bhakta Don Muntean]

07/29/05 04:11 AM Edit Reply

 

Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami:

 

 

 

In the Semitic thought we do not find any metensomatosistic speculation; so they are prone to consider the spirit as a composition of chanced incident, and this material combination as the starting point of the souls. So these thoughts are opposed to the theory inculcated by the conception of seelanwanderung or metempsychosis. The spiritistic view is quite different from the idea of material congregation which is wrongly considered as the composition of the eternal soul. On the other hand, the non-Semitic thoughts make a departure from the Semitic ideas of non-transmigrating accidental composition.

 

 

 

That is to say, the prophets of the Semitic religions did not believe in metempsychosis(reincarnation) and instead they "wrongly considered" that the eternal soul was created via "material congregation".

 

The Semitic people believe in a formless, impersonal Absolute:

"You may not see the glory of my face, for man may not see me and live".

- Exodus 33, vs 20

 

 

Both the Semitic and the non-Semitic people live in the impersonality of the Absolute; whereas, the clear eyes of the devotees can see the personality of Godhead as the Fountainhead of many conflicting and contending energies that foster the whims of different parties. Proneness to forgetfulness is afforded by the free will of non-devotees who are found to adopt wrong processes as their guiding principles.

 

 

Don, where in the Talmud or Bible is there any reference to the personal form of God? Indeed it is a fact that they promote the idea that we cannot see God. They imagine an invisible, formless God.

 

--------

 

Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati [re: Guest]

07/29/05 04:13 AM Edit Reply

 

The quotes above, in black are the words of Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati, written in English, in his own style of prose.

http://www.vaisnava.com/sbp_forg.html

 

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

 

Realize who is saying this [re: Guest]

07/29/05 04:18 AM Edit Reply

 

Don, the quotes above are by Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

Please understand, they are Acharyas, with a depth of realization about spiritual issues, and they have not said these things about the Semitic religions without having a proper understanding of the Semitic religions. They know what they are talking about. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur clearly stated that the Semitic religions are concocted religions. Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami said that their religious conception is an impersonalist conception of the Absolute.

 

Hare Krishna.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reply:

 

I would say that Prabhupada’s statements impart more direct implication - by virtue of the sheer volume of his literary achievements – and that is directed at modern humanity – I think that Prabhupada offers us the practical realization of Bhativinode's teachings.

 

Does your case have other materials as noted – or this one essay?

 

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

 

 

 

There are more articles [re: Bhakta Don Muntean]

07/29/05 04:39 AM Edit Reply

There are many more articles by Gaudiya Acharyas in regard to Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

 

Generally we see that the Acharyas are respectful towards those religions, and indeed one of the offences against the Holy Name is to criticize other religions. However, that is not to say that the Gaudiya Acharyas have all said that those religions are good paths to follow for people seeking to know God.

 

For instance, in Bhaktivinode Thakur's novel Jaiva Dharma we read where Babaji Mahasaya says:

 

Some time ago, in Sri Vraja-dhama, I submitted a question at the lotus feet of Sriman Mahaprabhu’s confidential associate, Sri Sanatana Gosvami. I asked him whether the word ishqh in the Islamic religious tradition means unadulterated love of God, or something else. Sanatana Gosvami was a learned scholar of all the sastras, and his erudition in the Arabic and Farsi languages in particular knew no bounds. Sri Rupa Gosvami, Sri Jiva Gosvami, and other exalted spiritual preceptors were present in that assembly. Sri Sanatana Gosvami kindly answered my question as follows:

 

“ ‘Yes, the word ishqh means love. Adherents of Islam do use the word ishqh in relation to the worship of Isvara, but the word generally means love in the ordinary worldly sense. Islamic religious teachers have not been able to understand the true conception of the pure spiritual entity, or suddha-cid-vastu. This is evident from the poetical account of the devoted lovers Laila and Majnun and from the literary descriptions of ishqh by the great poet Hafiz. They have referred to ishqh either as physical love pertaining to the gross body, or as emotional love in relation to the subtle body. Thus they cannot have had any experience of unadulterated divine love or prema towards Bhagavan. I have never seen this type of prema described in any religious texts of the Muslim teachers; I have only seen it in the Vaishnava sastras. The same is true of the Muslim word ruh, which means soul or spirit. It does not seem that Muslim teachers have used the word ruh to mean the suddha-jiva (the liberated soul); rather, they have used the word ruh in the sense of the baddha-jiva, the soul bound by matter.

 

“ ‘I have not seen unadulterated love for Krishna taught in any other religion, whereas descriptions of krsna-prema are common throughout the teachings of vaisnava-dharma. In the second cloak of Srimad-Bhagavatam, krsna-prema has been lucidly described in the statement, projjhita-kaitava-dharma: ‘This Srimad-Bhagavatam propounds the highest truth from which all pretentious religiosity has been rejected.’ Nonetheless, I have full faith that Sri Krsna Caitanya was the first to give full instructions on the religion of unalloyed krsna-prema. If you have faith in my words, you may accept this conclusion.’

Having heard these instructions, I offered prostrated obeisances to Sanatana Gosvami again and again.”

 

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

 

[my reply]

 

Unmoved... [re: Guest]

07/29/05 05:17 AM Edit Reply

<font color="red"> </font color>

 

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

 

[my reply]

 

Talmud, Ibid., fol. 171, col. 1.] [re: Guest]

07/29/05 05:27 AM Edit Reply

Quote:

 

the prophets of the Semitic religions did not believe in metempsychosis(reincarnation) and instead they "wrongly considered" that the eternal soul was created via "material congregation".

 

Reply:

 

Well I take this information:

 

"The whole world once believed that the souls of men were perishable, and that man had no pre-eminence above a beast, till Abraham came and preached the doctrine of immortality and transmigration." [Talmud, Ibid., fol. 171, col. 1.]

 

"The Holy One--blessed be He!--often brings affliction on the righteous though they have not sinned, in order that they may learn to keep aloof from the allurements of the world and eschew temptation to sin. From this it is plain that afflictions are good for man, and therefore our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said, "As men bless with joy and a sincere heart for a benefit received, so likewise ought they joyfully to bless God when He afflicts them, as, though the special blessing be hidden from the children of men, such affliction is surely intended for good. . . . Or most souls being at present in a state of transmigration, God requites a man now for what his soul merited in a bypast time in another body, by having broken some of the 613 precepts." [Talmud, Kitzur Sh'lu, p. 6, col. 1.]

 

"Rabbi Isaac Luria was once passing the great academy of Rabbi Yochanan in Tiberias, where he showed his disciples a stone in the wall, remarking, "In this stone there is a transmigrated soul, and it cries that I should pray on its behalf. And this is the mystic meaning of (Hab. ii. 11), 'The stone shall cry out of the wall.'" [Talmud, Ibid., fol. 11, col. 2.]

 

Clearly that is what the hebrew teaching is.

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

Also, in the Bible it is said that for hundreds of years the Israelites used to worship an idol of a serpent, Nehustan, which was made by Moses. So I really can't understand that "idol worship" is supposed to be against the rulings of yahwey. After all, it was Yahwey and moses who proposed that the Israelites should worship this snake idol Nehustan in the first place.”

 

Reply:

 

Semitic serpent god whose idol was made by Moses (2Kings 18:4), Hebrew Nehushtan or Nahash, "serpent" descended from the Vedic serpent-king Nahusha, that once ruled all the gods, but cast down to the underworld by India. The Gnostic Jews worshipped Nehustan for the first few centuries AD. (see Gnosticism) They were known as Naassians, "snake-worshippers," and counterparts of the Ophites. A.G.H.

 

1. SOURCE Walker, Barbara G.

The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets.

New York, HarperCollins, 1983 [iSBN 0-06-250925-X]”

 

That misinformation was from:

 

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/n/nehushtan.html

 

Now whether the part about the Vedic connection is true - is really quite doubtful – as the creation of this brazen serpent had a purpose - one that is well explained in the source texts.

 

Its purpose was to remind some backsliders of their offence in wanting to eat flesh and the offence of making flesh sacrifices to idols.

 

Numbers 21.8-9:

 

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."

 

Why did he do this – what do we find in the traditional Talmud commentary?

 

We find this point::

 

“…"And Moses made a serpent of brass and put it upon a pole; and it came to pass that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass he lived."

 

Had the brazen serpent the power of killing or of giving life? No; but while Israel looks upward to the Great Father in Heaven, He will grant life.

 

"Has God pleasure in the meat and blood of sacrifices?" ask the prophets.

 

No. He has not so much ordained as permitted them. "It is for yourselves," He says; "not for me, that ye offer."…” [RABBINICAL ANA]

 

We see that last point reflected here:

 

"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats." [isaiah 1.1]

 

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat [the] flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them: Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers." [Jeremiah 7.21-26]

 

So what really happened in this brazen serpent incident? Of course there is more information to consider.

 

Actual context for the creation of this ‘idol’ is found in text 5-6 of Numbers chapter 21:

 

“And the people spoke against God, and against Moses: 'Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread [flesh], and there is no water; and our soul loatheth this light bread [manna].'”

 

So we see it is further explained:

 

6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

 

7 And the people came to Moses, and said: 'We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that He take away the serpents from us.' And Moses prayed for the people.

 

8 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live.'

 

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it upon the pole; and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked unto the serpent of brass, he lived

 

This entire matter itself is described in Numbers chapter 11:

 

1 And the people were as murmurers, speaking evil in the ears of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and devoured in the uttermost part of the camp. 2 And the people cried unto Moses; and Moses prayed unto the LORD, and the fire abated. 3 And the name of that place was called Taberah, because the fire of the LORD burnt among them. 4 And the mixed multitude [i.e.: the foreigners - like the Egyptians] that was among them fell a lusting [a greed for flesh]; and the children of Israel [thus] also wept on their part, and said: 'Would that we were given flesh to eat! 5 We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have nought save this manna to look to.'-- 7 Now the manna was like coriander seed, and the appearance thereof as the appearance of bdellium. 8 The people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in mortars, and seethed it in pots, and made cakes of it; and the taste of it was as the taste of a cake baked with oil. 9 And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it. - 10 And Moses heard the people weeping, family by family, every man at the door of his tent; and the anger of the LORD was kindled greatly; and Moses was displeased. 11 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'Wherefore hast Thou dealt ill with Thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in Thy sight, that Thou layest the burden of all this people upon me? 12 Have I conceived all this people? have I brought them forth, that Thou shouldest say unto me: Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking child, unto the land which Thou didst swear unto their fathers? 13 Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they trouble me with their weeping, saying: Give us flesh, that we may eat. 14 I am not able to bear all this people myself alone, because it is too heavy for me. 15 And if Thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in Thy sight; and let me not look upon my wretchedness.' {P}

 

16 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tent of meeting, that they may stand there with thee. 17 And I will come down and speak with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone. 18 And say thou unto the people: Sanctify yourselves against to-morrow, and ye shall eat flesh; for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying: Would that we were given flesh to eat! for it was well with us in Egypt; therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat. 19 Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; 20 but a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you; because that ye have rejected the LORD who is among you, and have troubled Him with weeping, saying: Why, now, came we forth out of Egypt?' 21 And Moses said: 'The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand men on foot; and yet Thou hast said: I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month! 22 If flocks and herds be slain for them, will they suffice them? or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them?' {P}

 

23 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or not.' 24 And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD; and he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the Tent. 25 And the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders; and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did so no more. 26 But there remained two men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad; and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were recorded, but had not gone out unto the Tent; and they prophesied in the camp. 27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said: 'Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.' 28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses from his youth up, answered and said: 'My lord Moses, shut them in.' 29 And Moses said unto him: 'Art thou jealous for my sake? would that all the LORD'S people were prophets, that the LORD would put His spirit upon them!' 30 And Moses withdrew into the camp, he and the elders of Israel. 31 And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought across quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, about a day's journey on this side, and a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and about two cubits above the face of the earth. 32 And the people rose up all that day, and all the night, and all the next day, and gathered the quails; he that gathered least gathered ten heaps; and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp. 33 While the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague. 34 And the name of that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah [a name which literally means - "graves of greed"], because there they buried the people that lusted [for flesh]. 35 From Kibroth-hattaavah the people journeyed unto Hazeroth; and they abode at Hazeroth. {P}

 

We also learn of this incident in Psalm 78:

 

These texts [2 Kings 18.4 and Numbers chapter 11 and chapter 21] that is the subject matter here - must be understood - there are a couple of points that are brought out in this Chapter of Psalms.

 

Firstly the context is later set - but in text 4 the discussion is about backsliding people and the:

 

4"the praiseworthy deeds of the LORDso the next generation would know them".

 

The point in texts 12-16 retells the exodus from egypt and then in texts 17 and 18 we see the contextually important point:

 

"But they continued to sin against him, rebelling in the desert against the Most High. They willfully put God to the test by demanding the food they craved."

 

Of course we know that some of the people wanted flesh and God - was giving manna – looks like He was trying to wean them from flesh and false worship in that 40 years of desert wandering!

 

The people mused to themselves:

 

20"When he struck the rock, water gushed out, and streams flowed abundantly. But can he also give us food? Can he supply meat for his people?"

 

21 When the LORD heard them, he was very angry;".

 

27: "He rained meat down on them like dust, flying birds like sand on the seashore.

 

28 He made them come down inside their camp, all around their tents.

 

29 They ate till they had more than enough, for he had given them what they craved."

 

Thus we see how is anger was provoked -- they wanted to eat flesh and he wanted them not to - what was the price?

 

30: "But before they turned from the food they craved, even while it was still in their mouths,

 

31 God's anger rose against them; he put to death the sturdiest among them, cutting down the young men of Israel."

 

The story goes on:

 

"Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.

 

41 Again and again they put God to the test;"

 

Thus we see a description of plagues that followed and - the rebuking of the people.

 

So this serpent ‘idol’ had its purpose – it was to remind [some of] the people who were inclined to offer flesh to idols - that they aught not sin against God in that regard – He was providing food – good food flesh free food.

 

But in Egypt there were impure ways – and it seems that flesh eating and sacrificing were co-dependant practices - more often than not – and some of the people - not all - (on the goading of the Egyptians among them) - longed for those ways.

 

So in time this brazen serpent on a pole - became an idol with a name – and it was thus destroyed as noted in 2 Kings 18.4 – that it had be disposed of was apparent – but its original purpose must been understood when reading 2 Kings chapter 18.1-4:

 

Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. And he did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, according to all that David his father had done. He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah; and he broke in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did offer to it; and it was called Nehushtan.”

 

So this particular passage isn’t supporting image worship – but it reflects the use of images – something that is noted in numerous places in the Torah and subsequent books.

 

I think the striking point here is the displeasure that God showed for the flesh eating – and it seems that a lot of subsequent strict rules and narrow concessions were put in place to try to curb this practice.

 

BDM

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

Also, in the Bible it is said that for hundreds of years the Israelites used to worship an idol of a serpent, Nehustan, which was made by Moses. So I really can't understand that "idol worship" is supposed to be against the rulings of yahwey. After all, it was Yahwey and moses who proposed that the Israelites should worship this snake idol Nehustan in the first place

 

Reply:

 

Have a look at chapter’s 17-18 of the book of judges:

 

1 Now there was a man of the hill-country of Ephraim, whose name was Micah. 2 And he said unto his mother: 'The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from thee, about which thou didst utter a curse, and didst also speak it in mine ears, behold, the silver is with me; I took it.' And his mother said: 'Blessed be my son of the LORD.' 3 And he restored the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother, and his mother said: 'I verily dedicate the silver unto the LORD from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image; now therefore I will restore it unto thee.' 4 And when he restored the money unto his mother, his mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image; and it was in the house of Micah. 5 And the man Micah had a house of God, and he made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. 6 In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes. {P}

 

7 And there was a young man out of Beth-lehem in Judah--in the family of Judah--who was a Levite, and he sojourned there. 8 And the man departed out of the city, out of Beth-lehem in Judah, to sojourn where he could find a place; and he came to the hill-country of Ephraim to the house of Micah, as he journeyed. 9 And Micah said unto him: 'Whence comest thou?' And he said unto him: 'I am a Levite of Beth-lehem in Judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.' 10 And Micah said unto him: 'Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten pieces of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals.' So the Levite went in. 11 And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons. 12 And Micah consecrated the Levite, and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah. 13 Then said Micah: 'Now know I that the LORD will do me good, seeing I have a Levite as my priest.' {P}

 

Then we see – God nowhere rebukes them for making this image of Him.

 

1…And the children of Dan set up for themselves the graven image; and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land. 31 So they set them up Micah's graven image which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh. {P}

 

Then there is this:

 

MISHNA VII. TO IX:

 

"If God is displeased with idol-worship, why does he not destroy the idols, etc.? If the heathens worshipped but things not needful to the world, He would surely annihilate them; but they worship the sun, moon, stars and the planets. How is it that so many cripples are cured by the idols in their temples? If one comes to defile himself, the door is opened to him, while when one comes to cleanse himself, he is supported….”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why don’t birds and beasts have souls like the human beings.

 

Reply:

 

You might find it interesting that the Hebrew word nephesh - which is translated as “soul” – the same word nephesh - is used in connection to the animals - in twenty-two major texts in the Torah.

 

It is rendered as - "creature" in Genesis 1.21 & 24 – 2.19 – 9.10 & 12.

 

It is also found in Leviticus 11.46.

 

In genesis - where God makes a covenant with - “all creatures” - as seen in 9.15-16 the word nephesh - is rendered as - “creature” – and refers to both man and animal.

 

In numbers 31.28 - the word nephesh refers to “soul” – and it is applied to both man and beast.

 

There is so much more – but that should be enough to evidence that [at least] in the Sacred Texts of the Hebrews - the teaching is that animals are nephesh or “souls” – like humans.

 

Of course the contextual teachings of karma and reincarnation are also there – in Talmud - there are references to the transmigration of 'human' souls into animal bodies.

 

Of course we find this in Bhagavatam:

 

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is situated as the Supersoul within the cores of the hearts of all living entities, whether moving or nonmoving, including men, birds, animals, trees and, indeed, all living entities. Therefore you should consider every body a residence or temple of the Lord. By such vision you will satisfy the Lord. You should not angrily kill these living entities in the forms of trees." [srimad Bhagavatam 6.4.13]

 

"I am present in every living entity as the Supersoul. If someone neglects or disregards that Supersoul everywhere and engages himself in the worship of the Deity in the temple, that is simply imitation." [srimad Bhagavatam 3.9.21]

 

There is this point in Gita - this text has been quoted before in this string:

 

"One who sees the Supersoul in every living being and equal everywhere does not degrade himself by his mind. Thus he approaches the transcendental destination." [bG 13.29]

 

Yer servant,

 

BDM

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Did Srila Prabhupada ever mention the Talmud?

 

Did Srila Prabhupada ever say the Talmud is a genuine scripture?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

Did Srila Prabhupada ever mention the Talmud?

 

Did Srila Prabhupada ever say the Talmud is a genuine scripture?

 

Reply:

 

When Prabhupada mentions ‘the scriptures of the biblical faiths’ - I think it is to be assumed that he is referring to the scriptures and - related texts - which those peoples revere – to learn of these texts – we must reference the tradition’s of those peoples.

 

Not that Srila Prabhupada gave a detailed description of all the scriptures of the world - with their commentaries.

 

That is what the Talmud is – a commentary – so I am not sure why you cannot understand that it is scripture - insofar as it is a commentary on scripture.

 

Some outsiders think that the Mahabharata and - as such - the Bhagavad Gita isn’t scripture – they say the same of Srimad Bhagavatam – even in the vedic tradition there are followers - with opposing theological variances - in terms of what is accepted as scripture and - how one each contrasts the others.

 

I wonder where you are going with this argument – are you saying that since Prabhupada didn’t mention it – he would thus reject it?

 

So you can thus conjecture his unspoken opinion and - reject it too? Sounds a little reaching to me…

 

“…There are so many nonsensical literatures, stories and books of speculative philosophy. Materialistic persons are very interested in reading such literature, but when they are presented with genuine books of knowledge like Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-Gita, Vishnu Purana or other scriptures of the world, such as the Bible and Koran, they are not interested…” [sB 3.32.19, purport]

 

“…Even scriptures like the Bible or the Koran, declare that the Absolute Truth is the all-powerful, all knowing Supreme Person…” [Renunciation Through Wisdom, chapter 1.8]

 

Of course - I think you are meditating almost exclusively on this one comment from Prabhupada:

 

“…The Shastras [scriptures] of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasonings, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable…” [C.C., Adi, 17.169]

 

As I said - there are [seeming] contradictory comments from Prabhupada himself – what did he mean in that C.C. quote?

 

He is saying:

 

“…As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable…”

 

We know his opinion on science and modern speculative philosophy – so he is not saying that he rejects these scriptures – rather he is saying it is being rejected by - "modern people".

 

He is saying that they came into existence recently – well that’s not bad in and of itself – certain Vedic texts like the Caitanya-Caritamrita, - one could say that it was fashioned recently – does that make it bad?

 

He says that they are not eternal – I think he is indicating that amongst those traditions - their influence has waned and thus they are not eternal - and in many cases no trancendental mellow is present in the pages - as we know it's due to the modes of nature which the particular reader may be in.

 

As for the contradictions found therein – well contradictions are also found in our texts – and one who takes a proper vision - will not be perplexed - by seeming contradictory statements as found in various sacred texts - and yes - these types of contradictions appear in all the traditions.

 

It gives the various traditions something for them together to - reconcile and resolve – to the great pleasure of God!

 

The book The Quest for Enlightenment has this reproduction of an exchange of question and answer - with a devotee on the topic of Discussions on Western Philosophy and Science:

 

Hayagriva : As far as contradictions and seeming absurdities in scripture are concerned, Origen considered them to be stumbling blocks permitted to exist by God in order for man to pass beyond the literal meaning. He writes that “everything in scripture has a spiritual meaning, but not all of it has a literal meaning.

 

Srila Prabhupada: Generally speaking, every word in scripture has a literal meaning, but people cannot understand it properly because they do not hear from the proper person. They interpret instead. There is no need to interpret the words of God.

 

Sometimes the words of God cannot be understood by an ordinary person; therefore we may require the transparent medium of the guru. Since the guru is fully cognizant of the words spoken by God, we are advised to receive the words of the scriptures through the guru. There is no ambiguity in the words of God, but due to our imperfect knowledge, we sometimes cannot understand. Not understanding, we try to interpret, but because we are imperfect, our interpretations are also imperfect. The conclusion is that the words of God, the scriptures, should be understood from a person who has realized God."

 

“…devotees who know the Supreme Personality of Godhead do not see contradictions in Him… The unintelligent see contradictions in Him, but sober devotees find no contradictions.” [sB 6.9.37, purport]

 

“… If somebody says that “We find some contradiction from Vedic literature, from this literature to that literature,” no. There is nothing at all, any contradiction, even, even in the preachings of the great acaryas. I am speaking of India. There were many great acaryas, I mean to say, reformers, came. Lord Buddha also appeared in India. Then, after Lord Buddha, Shankaracarya came. Then, after Shankaracarya, Sri Ramanujacarya came. Then, after Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, and then, lately, Sri Caitanya, Lord Caitanya. He came. But you will find a link, a link, although superficially we may see that Lord Buddha is speaking something which is contradictory to Lord Shankaracarya’s teaching, or Ramanujacarya is speaking something which is contradiction to Shankara. No. There is no contradiction. It is the question of studying how they are paving way for ultimate spiritual realization. That requires a very, I mean to say, substantial knowledge, how they are paving the way, just step by step. …” [bhagavad Gita 2.58-59 [Lecture] April 27, 1966]

 

Yer Servant,

 

BDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 17.169

 

Purport by Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

 

The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasonings, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable. Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 17.169

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...