Printable Version of Topic
Click Here To Return To Sanjay Dadlani Deception Main Page
Gaudiya Discussions _ QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS _ Reliability of the Bhagavatha in relations to the Cosmos
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 20 2005, 06:40 PM
I have a question about the integrity of the Srimad Bhagavatham as a
"literal" and "accurate" reference and source.
In
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/5/22/en1, Sukadev gives a description to the Sun,
Moon and Planets. The passages in question are:
SB 5.22.8: Above the rays of the sunshine by a distance of 100,000 yojanas [800,000 miles] is the moon, which travels at a speed faster than that of the sun. In two lunar fortnights the moon travels through the equivalent of a samvatsara of the sun, in two and a quarter days it passes through a month of the sun, and in one day it passes through a fortnight of the sun.
SB 5.22.9: When the moon is waxing, the illuminating portions of it increase daily, thus creating day for the demigods and night for the pitas. When the moon is waning, however, it causes night for the demigods and day for the pitas. In this way the moon passes through each constellation of stars in thirty muhurtas [an entire day]. The moon is the source of nectarean coolness that influences the growth of food grains, and therefore the moon-god is considered the life of all living entities. He is consequently called Jiva, the chief living being within the universe.
SB 5.22.10: Because the moon is full of all potentialities, it represents the influence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The moon is the predominating deity of everyone's mind, and therefore the moon-god is called Manomaya. He is also called Annamaya because he gives potency to all herbs and plants, and he is called Amritamaya because he is the source of life for all living entities. The moon pleases the demigods, pitas, human beings, animals, birds, reptiles, trees, plants and all other living entities. Everyone is satisfied by the presence of the moon. Therefore the moon is also called Sarvamaya [all-pervading].
SB 5.22.11: There are many stars located 200,000 yojanas [1,600,000 miles] above the moon. By the supreme will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are fixed to the wheel of time, and thus they rotate with Mount Sumeru on their right, their motion being different from that of the sun. There are twenty-eight important stars, headed by Abhijit.
SB 5.22.12: Some 1,600,000 miles above this group of stars is the planet Venus, which moves at almost exactly the same pace as the sun according to swift, slow and moderate movements. Sometimes Venus moves behind the sun, sometimes in front of the sun and sometimes along with it. Venus nullifies the influence of planets that are obstacles to rainfall. Consequently its presence causes rainfall, and it is therefore considered very favorable for all living beings within this universe. This has been accepted by learned scholars.
SB 5.22.13: Mercury is described to be similar to Venus, in that it moves sometimes behind the sun, sometimes in front of the sun and sometimes along with it. It is 1,600,000 miles above Venus, or 7,200,000 miles above earth. Mercury, which is the son of the moon, is almost always very auspicious for the inhabitants of the universe, but when it does not move along with the sun, it forbodes cyclones, dust, irregular rainfall, and waterless clouds. In this way it creates fearful conditions due to inadequate or excessive rainfall.
SB 5.22.14: Situated 1,600,000 miles above Mercury, or 8,800,000 miles above earth, is the planet Mars. If this planet does not travel in a crooked way, it crosses through each sign of the zodiac in three fortnights and in this way travels through all twelve, one after another. It almost always creates unfavorable conditions in respect to rainfall and other influences.
SB 5.22.15: Situated 1,600,000 miles above Mars, or 10,400,000 miles above earth, is the planet Jupiter, which travels through one sign of the zodiac within the period of a Parivatsara. If its movement is not curved, the planet Jupiter is very favorable to the brahmanas of the universe.
SB 5.22.16: Situated 1,600,000 miles above Jupiter, or 12,000,000 miles above earth, is the planet Saturn, which passes through one sign of the zodiac in thirty months and covers the entire zodiac circle in thirty Anuvatsaras. This planet is always very inauspicious for the universal situation.
SB 5.22.17: Situated 8,800,000 miles above Saturn, or 20,800,000 miles above earth, are the seven saintly sages, who are always thinking of the well-being of the inhabitants of the universe. They circumambulate the supreme abode of Lord Vishnu, known as Dhruvaloka, the polestar.
Of course, Sukadev is stating that we live in a geocentric universe ("The sun-god has three speeds...The time he takes to travel entirely around the spheres of heaven, earth and space..."). Also the planetary distances that Sukadev gives are off from between 25 - 750 million miles. Sukadev also stated the Sun was closer to the Earth than the Moon ("Above the rays of the sunshine by a distance of 100,000 yojanas is the moon, which travels at a speed faster than that of the sun"). Some have tried to explain the distant Moon theory in terms of "regions". However, no matter how one tries to reconcile this issue, the Sun simply cannot be closer to the Earth than the Moon.
How does one reconcile these statements with our current scientific understanding? Why would Sukadev give inaccurate information? And if one is to discard this information, for whatever reason, how can we accept Sukadev as an authority on other information? Discarding some of Suka's words and accepting others is being equivocal.
I discussed this with a person alleging to be a Vaishnava and his answers were wholly unconvincing. He said that Sukadev's comments about the Sun, Moon and planets are not to be believed because the Bhagavatha is not a "cosmological text". However, why would Sukadev give this information about the cosmos, if it were not true in the first place? I have also read other's opinions where one must accept Vedic injunctions over scientific ones. Any answers?
I hope this line of questioning is not offensive. I am just curious on how other Vaishnava's would explain this to someone who is open-minded enough to question these points of contention. Thanks.
Posted by: Madhava Dec 20 2005, 07:54 PM
This has been discussed in a good number of earlier threads. Please take a
moment to review the below:
-
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=1828
-
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=2604
There are
those, who insist that everything must be read in the most literal manner
possible, no matter how badly it may contradict our experience of the world, our
common sense and the such. Then there are those, who say that the scriptures
also contain untruths and/or irrelevant information, and must therefore be
subjected to common sense and when in contradiction, the conflicting sections
should be left aside.
I do not feel comfortable with either of the two
approaches. I have at times attempted to find a path in the middle of the two
that appeals to common sense and maintains the integrity of the scripture. The
exponents of the former object that I am just like those of the latter class
with too big a head, and the exponents of the latter feel I am still stuck in an
unnecessary paradigm.
All things considered, I tend to think I have for
the most part given up on trying to offer reconciliatory explanations of such
topics for everyone, in favor of delving into matters of bhajan with those who
share an inclination for the same. Whichever is the explanation that brings
peace into your heart and helps you cross over yet another obstacle in embarking
on the path of devotion, embrace that and walk the way onwards. People with
varying mindsets will find different approaches satisfactory.
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 20 2005, 10:19 PM
Madhava, thank you warmly for your answer.
I read both threads and
felt neither directly answered my questions. I am not arguing so much about all
the errors in the Bhagavatha, as I am contemplating the ramifications and
implications to these errors.
For example, when the Bhagavatha said that
Lord Krsna manifested 16,000 seperate forms and married 16,000 women, is this
lila/miracle/story true? If one says "yes", on whose authority is it
true? And what makes that person or scripture an authority? Of course, in this
example, people will cite Sukadev as the authority. However, when Sukadev
related false and inaccurate information about the cosmos, how can his authority
be trusted when it comes to the miracles ascribed to Lord Krsna?
The
Vaishnava I spoke to made his case that it would be a "greivous error" to
believe Sukadev's description for the the cosmos! Nevertheless, when it
comes to Sukadev's description of supra-human miracles attributed to Lord Krsna,
these miracles are indisputably true, based on the authority of Sukadev!
Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in this argument? In one instance,
Sukadev's words are scripture and are indisputable, but when it comes to the
cosmos, they are not scripture and are disputable!
It seems
to me that, in the case of the Bhagavatha, things that cannot be verified
by science are said to be indisputably true, while things that can be
verified by science (which are disproved in the Bhagavatha) are explained away,
trivialized or ignored.
Although some have argued (in the threads posted
by Madhava) that these errors can be attributed to "mythology" and the
common errors made by the "science of the day", those who believe in the
Bhagavatha do not see it as being "mythological" and its
inspiration was not based on a common man's understanding and errors!
After all, we are talking about Sukadev and Vyasadev! Were ordinary humans
responsible for the composition and content to the Bhagavatha?
Sukadev is
described as an enlightened Spiritual Master (a Brahma Jnani) situated in the
highest state of superconsciousness. Vyasadev is similarly described and he is
attributed with the composition of the Bhagavatha. How can the Bhagavatha be
cited as an indisputable authority, in relation to supra-human miracles
attributed of Lord Krsna, when it gets basic scientific facts wrong?
I
think an open discussion, regarding this issue, will foster a deeper
contemplation that will ultimately strengthen and test the fiber of one's
devotion. Thank you for allowing me to ask my questions and express my views.
This entire line of questioning arose from a discussion I had with a
self-professed Vaishnava. I thought I'd like to see the opinions of others
before arriving at any conclusions.
Posted by: Gaurasundara Dec 21 2005, 12:18 AM
Thanks for those! I'll add them to the list!
Posted by: Madhava Dec 21 2005, 03:20 AM
Let me try to flesh out a few points from those threads to bring them to
focus for you, and add in a tidbit of new too.
1. Parikshit expressed a
desire to hear of the universe described as the sthUla-rUpa of Bhagavan,
and so Shukadeva described. (BhP 5.16.3)
2. According to Shukadeva,
no-one is truly able to comprehend the features of the cosmos. (BhP
5.16.4)
Scientific accuracy or lack thereof was never a concern in the
narration to begin with. The hearer of the narration had seven days to perfect
his life by hearing of the deeds and glories of Hari. The speaker spoke of all
things between heaven and earth in conjunction with Hari, to bring the mind in
touch with Hari. The task was accomplished, perfection was attained. The
"classical" or Puranic model of the cosmos was perfectly employed in the
task.
Example: You are a firm believer in the Big Bang, the common
current outlook on the source of the universe. You'll approach me with an
interest to perfect your life by perceiving Hari within all things and within
your heart. I'll tell you how at the dawn of the creation hundreds of millions
of universes are cast forth from the being of the Great Vishnu in Big Bangs that
unfold and find their shape as the elements settle. You'll contemplate and
realize, "Let me always meditate on that Great Vishnu, of whom universes burst
forth."
Then, this is recorded and handed down over generations. In a
thousand years, the current prevailing theory has radically changed and the Big
Bang is considered an outdated theory. Has there, then, been a flaw in my
narration? Was that ever a concern in my narration? The above demonstrates that
the point of the narration was not to help people understand the nitty-gritty
details of the universe. The universe was employed to bring the mind in contact
with Hari.
Then again, if one still wishes to explore the accuracy of the
model, one must take into account that the realms of the devas are not within
our sensory grasp; yet, they are widely described in Shukadeva's narration,
suggesting the cosmos he describes is not within our sensory reach. One who
engages in a fierce Surya-sadhana will attain the vision of Surya-Narayana and
the chariot with the wheel of time pulled by horses led by Anushtup and Gayatri
across the sky.
One who merely glances at the sky, no matter with how
fancy an instrument, will see a yellowish globe radiating light and heat.
Without the corresponding sadhana, we do not have the eligibility to witness the
abodes of the gods. They are also beyond the reach of human logic, for the
simple reason that they are wholly beyond our restricted sensory ability and
corresponding experiences.
The universe Shukadeva describes is not a
cosmos you observe, study and meticulously dissect with instruments. It is a
cosmos you have darshan of in a mystic vision. Someone with a keen interest for
such darshan will come to see it all. It is, therefore, not false or
inaccurate.
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 21 2005, 04:23 AM
Madhava, I am not a "firm believer in the big bang". The "big
bang" does not denote singularity and already has its own fair share of
criticism. The cosmos is vast and no one truly understands it. Agreed. However,
I am not talking about the cosmos. I am talking about our own solar
system, of which a great deal is known.
Sukadev gave descriptions
to our Solar System. They were not purely "spiritualized"
descriptions, but descriptions with literal distances from the Earth. I
see no reason why Sukadev could have described the Sun, Moon and Planets as
they are and told the truth about their actual distances at the same time.
What harm would there have been for Suka to tell the truth?
If Sukadev
told Parikshit the truth about the distances of the planets from the
Earth, this would have caused greater awe and greater reverence
for the Creator (as the actual distances are inconceivable farther than what
Sukadev said they were). This would also have given greater integrity and
credibility to the Bhagavatha in future generations.
If Sukadev was just
relating "spiritualized" versions of events, then are you willing to say
that the miracles ascribed to Lord Krsna did not literally and
actually happen on Earth, but were "spiritualized" descriptions of
events that occurred on a spiritual plane?
Why is it that Devotees
believe that Sukadev was 100% honest in relating literal, actual
and historical events about the life & lilas of Lord Krsna, yet did
not abide by the same standards when describing our Solar
System?
Thank you warmly for your response.
Posted by: Madhava Dec 21 2005, 05:20 AM
It is not that Shukadeva described a theory of his own with the distances and all that. He spoke on the basis of an already existing theory, with which Maharaj Parikshit was no doubt acquainted as well. What good would it have done, had he began to rewrite books of astronomy at such a crucial moment, when science was not what was being explored to begin with?
Posted by: Prisni dasi Dec 21 2005, 07:01 AM
It is a matter of viewpoints and also of purpose. Someone mentioned here that the purpose of the speaker of SB was not to give a cosmologically (scientific) accurate picture of the universe. We can read a popular-science magazine which gives a simplified description suitable to the level of understanding of the reader, or we can learn in school, where the schoolbooks gives a suitable description for a child. The SB gives a suitable description for the person serious in spiritual life,
A similar situation is the description of matter. Either in forms of atoms, molecules, etc., as in the modern western world. Or the viewpoint of earth, water, air, etc. Both are correct descriptions which can be applied to view matter. But both descriptions are limited in how they can be apllied. For example, you can't have the chemist's viewpoint and then perform the arati ceremony. It just not possible. Are you going to offer the chemicals, molecules and atoms, one by one to Krishna, or what? How are you to offer the false ego, in terms of the western scientific viewpoint?
Another aspect of the viewpoint is the grossness or subtility of the viewpoint. When looking at the universe though a telescope, we are looking at the grossest possible level and at that level only. When including the subtler aspects, the subtle matter, we get a completely different picture. It does not looking the same at all. (A key to understanding this is that the mind is on the subtle level. How do you look at the mind with a telescope or microscope?) It is just a completely different dimension not available to the gross materialist. Then, what to speak about looking from the even subtler viewpoint of the spiritual.
Spiritualists, who have developed a more subtle vision, often does not give a scientifically correct picture of the gross material. They just don't care or bother with it, since it does not matter for their purposes. So we get all kind of sweeping statements that does not add up on the gross level. The message here is: Don't get hung up on the information that the senses give. It is anyway just an illusion. Even from the gross level, matter is just atoms and particles, which actually does not really have a solid existence either, but are just flucturations of energy.
Every purana has to contain certain elements. The creation of the universe is one of them. A purana is not a free-form kind of litterature, it follows a certain scheme. So therefore those things are there in SB, even though it is not really the essence of the litterature. It is just a kind of general information. It can also be seen as a kind of stumbling blocks, for contemplation on, meant to give you the correct state of mind before proceeding further. To understand those descriptions, we need to develop a certain kind of thinking. Not having done that, it is useless to proceed forther, or at least we are in big danger of misunderstanding what is written.
ys Prisni dasi
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 21 2005, 07:20 AM
I think Sukadeva Goswami said Above the rays of the sunshine and not Above the Sun . Probably He referred to distance from "light" (although inconceivable for us) of the Sun.
And after all, who says anything is not possible? We shouldn't consider only those things as true what we can conceive by reasonoing & senses. For Krsna's external potency (Maya) everything "material" is possible to do, including deluding up to that extent that we won't be able to get exact distances by our ways of measurements. Even if Sun is closer to earth, it's possible for Maya to make us feel it far away & we can't prove that by any material means. If you start looking out for "material" proofs to prove the transcendental literature then, let me tell you, even 100s of such proofs can't guarantee the truth with 100% satisfaction. (After all, Krsna is Absolute truth) Only thing that can guarantee is faith. Those who haven't experienced faith can't understand that faith is a divine spiritual substance, which is beyond mind, inteligence & material body. For example, if I ask my mind "Why do I believe in the philosophy?", I get the answer something like (in the bhavas or whatever you can call "language of the mind") "I don't know but I do believe it. There is no material reason for it." This belief wasn't there initially, but it comes later on while practicing sadhna. Harinama (Sri Nama Prabhu) brought faith to sages like Valmiki & similarly He brought some faith in me too & I started to believe in these sastras (of course bonafide sastras like Vedic texts, that of Gosvamis, Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, etc). You can apply logic & reasoning upto some extent in them (as Mahavaji does) but not beyond your scope of understanding. For that you gotta increasing that "scope" by divine realizations & revealations.
So, the conclusion is, as far as trustable scriptures are concerned, take it all with mixture of logic & reasoning till you can understand with your current level of material senses. Krsna says "First believe Me (properly) & know about Me (at least, intellectually), & then realize Me & know completely about Me". That's the funda every sadhaka should keep in mind while practicing bhakti. Hey, this is not written anywhere (as far as I've read) but have come to understand with experience... in sadhna bhakti.
Posted by: Advaitadas Dec 21 2005, 08:37 AM
I think there is a great difference between challenging the acaryas, as some
highly educated and prominent members of this forum have done in the past, to
their detriment ("the Bhagavata is backwards" "The Bhagavata is full of the
wildest exaggarations") and acknowledging that the acaryas/sadhus are not
materially omniscient. After all, in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu the quality of
sarvajnata, omniscience, is only ascribed to entities like Shiva and upwards,
not to the jivas. Certainly our Indian Gurus dont know and dont need to know
what is the distance from Times Square to Manhattan. Does that mean we have to
go to world wide read forums and broadcast their ' ignorance' ? One can
challenge or even question the Bhagavata and end up making 5 namaparadhas - 1.
Criticising the saint (Sukadeva, Vyasa, for being 'backward'), 3. Criticising
the Guru (who believes and preaches the Bhagavata) 4. Criticising the shastras,
of course. 5. arthavada - conjuring some interpretation, and 6. harinamni
kalpanam - thinking the glories of the holy name/book to be exaggarated. Unless
you work for NASA I think you shouldnt really bother about the rocks flying in
the sky, especially not if it will deprive you from attaining Krishna (by
committing the above 5 namaparadhas) and will keep you in the material world
getting PhDs and dying birth after birth after birth. On the other hand, simple
faith and especially respect will lead to the nibhrita Nikunja. Complete loss
for a few rocks and complete gain without (bothering about) them....A very
simple choice for me........ 
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 21 2005, 08:50 AM
The problem with materialists is actually deficiency of faith. They not even
know that many things in the sastras are written that they can't dream or even
imagine in even millions of births. And because of that only (& consequently
their misfortune) they start criticizing omniscient mahatmas. In Ramcaritamanas,
Lord Siva has described such people that the people of Kaliyuga remain in worst
hells (like Raurav Hell) for many kalpas & when they take birth on earth
after suffering, that also in body of beast animals - all this because of lack
of faith. Pity is only something we can feel from them.
After all, its
Lord's desire by which everything occurs. Whenever I get the tendency to
criticize anyone or I feel bad about anyone even in the mind, the words of
Madrasi Baba sweeten my heart instantly:
gaurer amar sob bhalo ar boro
ami ek-matra manda ar
choto.
The whole world belongs to my Gaura and everyone is very
good and very great. I am the only one to be very bad and
insignificant.
To this, I add "Everything occurs by Krsna's will" &
it gets sweeter still (at least for me). 
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 21 2005, 10:05 AM
For all we know the astronomy of today will seem like absurdist mythology 100 years from now, just like we laugh at the science of 50 years ago in retrospect. Why this assumption that you are living in an era that has the real truth about (even) material reality? This is the same like every other era thought about their scientific assumptions, yet each era is proven successively wrong. Do you think this one won't be?
Why are "spiritualized versions of events" necessarily events that "do not literally actually happen on earth?"
Maybe through our gross perception of the actual world they don't. Yet we have no idea what some devotees perceive as the actual world through their spiritualized perception - even as they perceive the same literal, actual and historical world that we do.
Posted by: Madanmohan das Dec 21 2005, 10:13 AM
This new edition of the Bhagavata I have translated by Swami Tapasyananda has
an interesting prologue to the 5th Skandha.
"From the 16th chapter to the
end of the Skandha, eleven chapters are devoted to what looks like a schematic
description of the universe. The geography and astronomy of the descriptions may
look queer and fantastic to us who are conversant with the discoveries of modern
science. But we should not labour under the impression that the object of these
writers is to teach us geography and astronomy. It is clearly stated at the
beginning of the section that these descrptions are given in order to impress on
man that this universe is the gross form of the lord, and that by meditating on
it and by being impressed by it's wonderful uniqueness and by the might and
wisdom revealed in it, one's mind is helped to grasp the subtle, the spiritual
essence that gives substantiality to the universe. God, who is otherwise some
imaginary extra-cosmic being, becomes the real of the real, the ultimate
reality, when he is conceived as the support of what is real and most concrete
to us. Just as an image or a yantra ( ceremonial design ) becomes a symbol for
worship, an aid for grasping the immaterial ( aprakrta) spirit, the whole
universe can be used for such a purpose with great effect by a man endowed with
faith.
There's more.
I copy and pasted this from the link of post
that I put there because I thought it very pertinant and might have been
overlooked
And this as a "rasik" illustration of the
concept;
kalpadrumAdhah sthita ratnamandiraM
gopAla siMhAsana
yogapITham/
yamAgamajnAh pravadanti yaM hareh
priyAgaNah kelinikunjamAha
ca//
While depicting the sylvan beauty of Govinda Sthali, Sri
Kaviraja Goswami makes this observation.
In that place, 'neath the
umbragious shade of the Wish-yealding tree, stands the jewel-studded temple,
which the wise knowers of the rituals of the Agama sastras call the YogapItha
where stands Sri Gopala's lion-throne, but which his dear beloveds call Hari's
play-bower.
G.L. 21, 94
That is, what is decribed for meditation
purposes as an 8 or 16 petal lotus representing the inner sanctum of Goloka is
actaully as described above by Sri Kaviraj Goswami.
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 21 2005, 10:15 AM
You don't mind taking translations from Mayavadis? What about the consciousness of the translator affecting your consciousness?
Posted by: Madanmohan das Dec 21 2005, 10:33 AM
Well, I keep my correction pen and fine nibbed black pen handy. How it affects my consciouness I don't know, but I also read the sanskrt a bit, particularly if I feel a "mayavad" slant. I did'nt know the translator was such. He seems quite objective in the intro and prologue and all that, and some of what he says I certainly find insipid, but the translation of the text itself is a wonderful read.
Posted by: Kulapavana Dec 21 2005, 12:14 PM
There are many clues around us, that the Universe is not exactly fully
explainable by today's science. Some scientific theories, like black holes,
curvature of space, relativity of time, multidimensional aspect of subatomic
space, etc. are far more fantastic than what Bhagavatam presents in the 5th
Skanda. And some verses in that Skanda are tough to translate, to say the least.
Take this one for example:
"Above the rays of the sunshine by a distance
of 100,000 yojanas is the moon, which travels at a speed faster than that of the
sun"
Looking at the sanskrit, this verse can be translated in a number of
ways, let alone trying to figure out what exactly "above the rays of sunshine"
is... 
admitting that there may be things we will never know or understand, is
part of humility... 
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 21 2005, 06:30 PM
I know it must very easy to slant "materialists", etc., and judge others for
their lack of "spiritual perception", however the fact of the matter is
that many people (myself included) honestly cannot blindly believe and
blindly accept the stories as related in the Bhagavatha.
Now some people
may accuse me of blashemy and say things like,
Now if this line of questioning is too sensitive for others to endure, I will kindly desist from making any further enquiries. I am simply seeking answers about what I perceive to be equivocations in relation to the authority of Sukadev and the Bhagavatha.
Once again, the life and lilas of Lord Krsna are seen as being indispuatable, literal and bona fide, based on Sukadev's omniscience, integrity, spiritual stature and authority. However when it comes to things that science can disprove, Sukadev's words are dismissed as the "untruths of the day", repeated under the pressures of time restraints. Unfortunately, since Sukadev related these "untruths of the day", he perpetuated them based on his authority.
At any rate, thank you all for your responses. I think I can understand more clearly how Vaishnavas reconcile these questions with their faith. On a personal note, I enjoy reading the Bhagavatha and find the stories inspirational and insightful. I am not scornful of the text at all. I just read it with a different understanding and appreciation.
Posted by: Madhava Dec 21 2005, 06:53 PM
I do have a broad heart.
However, please,
everyone, eliminate from your posts any notes directed towards other members'
cheap tactics and what not. They are not conducive to the discussion at hand and
will only derail it to pointless "I dind't" - "Yes you did" - "No I didn't"
dialogues. Speak in general terms, if you need to say it to begin with (as you
can also just choose to not respond to a post not to your liking), instead of
directing it to individuals in public in a confronting fashion.
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 21 2005, 07:18 PM
I was not judging your perception unless you imagined I was trying to say that when I look at the sky I see chariots, obviously I don't so I am in your boat. The question is why should we expect the SB astronomy to conform to corporeal sense perception? Krishna does not conform to any of that either. Skin is not blue it is brown or beige. In the end believing a flute playing cow boy is the supreme personality and the meaning of your life is to serve him is just as irrational as chariots in the sky, if not way more. I think SP put this idea that GV is "a science" so you get people trying to act positivist about these things which is like trying to hold fine china with a baseball mit. Forget science proving faith, who needs it? If you don't want to see chariots in the sky than how can you believe in serving an eternally teenage blue cow herd and his consort? Or are you going to wait until science proves it is possible to be fourteen forever and after life is a land of lotusses? That is the dichotomy to think about for all those who are comfortable with maintaining that other dichotomy.
Posted by: Madhava Dec 21 2005, 07:45 PM
I would like to commend Tri-sandyam for some words of finest choice in her
latest post. Though, it
is fifteen forever...
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 21 2005, 11:49 PM
I am not stating that we need science to confirm faith. But it would
help.
I know this is getting redundant, but if Sukadev, as an
omnscient and perfected Spiritual Master, spent so much time
giving us literal, bona fide and historical facts about
Lord Krsna, I see no reason why he couldn't have done the same about our
Solar System. Once again, it appears to me that when science is able to disprove
certain claims, made by Sukadev, everyone excuses this and explains it away.
However, when it come to things that science will never be able to verify
(the lilas of Lord Krsna), devotees assert that those stories are
literal, bona fide, historical facts based on the authority
of Sukadev!
My questioning here is not about faith versus science. It is
about the discrepancies I pointed out and how Sukadev's words are cited as
"indisputable scripture" in one instance, and then basically
disregarded as "indisputable scripture" in another
instance.
Advaitadas, based on the tone of your response, it is clear to
me that you have a very different temperment than Madhava. Madhava has shown
great patience with my line of questioning and has not acted as you said you
would, hence my comment. You are free to PM if you want.
I have tried to
ask my questions the best way I know how. I feel they are valid questions and I
am simply seeking answers. I thought devotees would have already thought this
out (as surely I am not the first person who has discussed this
issue).
Thank You All & Peace.
Posted by: Gaurasundara Dec 22 2005, 01:24 AM
Also, SB 1.1.3 is great! muhur aho rasikA bhuvi-bhAvukaH!
Someone should kindly translate the introductory verses of SB for us, as well as SB 1.3.40-43!
Posted by: Madhava Dec 22 2005, 02:53 AM
All my previous attempts to explain the exegetical dimensions of the narration of the universe, here is something to consider:
We are talking about God. Almighty, all-pervasive, infinite, with countless facets. Whether in his being in the form of the universe, in his being as a blue-hued charming youngster, or in his being as a giant fish who swam in the waters of devastation.
All facets of God are perceived through surrender, contemplation and meditation. As we become attracted to him, as we surrender to him and as we worship him with particular flavors and contemplation, so he reveals himself to us. Thus say all the scriptures, too numerous to cite in this context.
Regardless of the historical accuracy or lack thereof of the narrative of the lila, if we become charmed with the narration and seek to worship the Lord with the befitting emotion, the lila will unfold within our heart's eyes as we've sought its darshan, and we'll come to attain our desired perfection in the cid-Ananda-dhAma, the abode of joy molded of pure awareness.
Hence the historical "accuracy" of the narratives of lila is also ultimately irrelevant.
Posted by: Madhava Dec 22 2005, 03:02 AM
Moderator speaks: I am growing very tired of these stupid and pointless tit-for-tat postings. I have already said that this is not welcome in the forums. Nevertheless people seem to enjoy engaging in such dialogues like flies are attracted to a pile of stool. Please be a gentleman and do not bother responding and prolonging the pain of everyone involved by posting one more "Why do you say this of me", "No I am not", "Yes you are", "Do you think you are". If you really need to, do that over PMs.
I will not send individual warnings on this. Everyone whose posts were just removed should consider themselves warned. Further warnings will lead to an automatic two week removal of posting rights. Thank you very much.
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 22 2005, 03:24 AM
The Vaishanva I discussed this issue with, had a very different viewpoint (which prompted this thread to begin with).
I will accept your answer and drop further discussion. If anyone would like to add their view, I would be more than happy to read about it. If others would like to continue this discussion in private, please feel to PM me.
Thank You.
Posted by: Sakhicharan Dec 22 2005, 03:29 AM
Moderator speaks: I am growing very tired of these stupid and pointless tit-for-tat postings. I have already said that this is not welcome in the forums. Nevertheless people seem to enjoy engaging in such dialogues like flies are attracted to a pile of stool. Please be a gentleman and do not bother responding and prolonging the pain of everyone involved by posting one more "Why do you say this of me", "No I am not", "Yes you are", "Do you think you are". If you really need to, do that over PMs.
I will not send individual warnings on this. Everyone whose posts were just removed should consider themselves warned. Further warnings will lead to an automatic two week removal of posting rights. Thank you very much.
My posts were removed by moderator-ji...
No
problem...anyway, I was not engaged in tit-for-tat...just doing my best to
answer Krishnapetal Ji...For the second time...
prati-zloke prati akSare nAnA artha kaya || CC 2.24.318
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 22 2005, 04:45 AM
I probably have it all wrong but aren't there people right now participating in the lilas serving Radha and Krishna in their siddha-deha? Or is Goloka an empirical geographical location like going to Honolulu? Aren't there people like that right now serving that way, and that is their literal bonafide and historical fact? But we are blind to it, right? We are side by side looking at the same thing, but our senses are not capting it, theirs are. Then isn't it possible that there is a chariot in the sky as a literal bona fide historical fact, but we are also blind to it?
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 22 2005, 05:12 AM
KrsnaPetal, I am sorry for applying a so supposed fear tactic. I
really don't mean all that. My point is that science what we study at material
level is actually nothing in front of the divine faith. Mind it - I'm referring
to divine faith & not blind faith. The former depends on the
realizations & latter on just belief. But just think – what if all what
Sukadeva Goswamiji is saying is true (& I know it’s true) & you
disbelieve that & start doing something not only very dangerous for your
spiritual life but material life too. So, I thought it would be better to warn
you (& many people like you) to better be very careful in asking such
questions because I know that Krsna knows everything we are doing (even in the
mind) but you might not have realized that.
So, for you (& for many
like you who can’t take everything in Vedic texts to be true at first
perception) I would like to say, sometimes it is better to have what you call as
“blind faith” in REAL truths (which may/may not be beyond your senses &
reasoning) to gain that “real divine faith” quickly in this life only. This is
my personal experience. I wish the same way for you. If someone speculates
before arriving at the truth, he generally takes a very long time in realizing
it – this is a fact (just take is for granted, otherwise you’re really really
unfortunate, believe it). And sometimes he may take very very long time as I’ve
described in earlier post (that’s also true).
If you believe in science,
then can you tell me does science have any acceptable explanation for the bliss?
I don’t think it does have proper proof of even mundane bliss (what to speak of
transcendental bliss). And there are so many things in cosmology that science
can’t prove. And after all, our material science is just a few hundred years old
(distances of planets weren’t determined 1000s of years ago) but Srimad
Bhagvatam is coming from begin-less time through a divine channel called Guru
Parampara. And one more thing, our science is made by mundane theories, either
totally concocted or with partially taking experimental data (again with mundane
perception), while Vedic texts (Srimad Bhagavatam) are oldest scriptures &
are coming from Absolute Truth (Krsna Himself). At least you gotta believing in
Absolute truth if you wanna living in this world. Otherwise, on whom would you
believe (if not in the Absolute divinity)?
I am not saying what such
people are called as (according to Vedas) who don’t believe in truths of Vedic
texts otherwise you'd say "trying to apply fear tactics". Whenever we use such
texts we actually do it for favor of the reader & never for gaining
anything.
Imagine if Supreme God (Krsna) comes in front of you saying
that it’s all true, then you’d also start accepting the truths of Srimad
Bhagvatam. Wouldn’t you? But why? Why would you trust Krsna Himself? He should
also bring some “proofs” to prove before you (little kiddies in front of Him)
what He has created. Isn’t it? Now, at this point you’ll be called what I’m
calling as “unfortunate”. Take another case, even if you start believing in the
direct words of Krsna, then what about your “many people” (like you)? What about
them? Then you will start calling them “unfortunate” when they’ll ask you about
authenticity of Srimad Bhagvatam. Wouldn’t you? Or you’d take some video
recording of Krsna & post it on this Blog? If Krsna
doesn't get "recorded" in your camera then? Even 1000s
of material proofs can’t give you 100% satisfaction. BUT DIVINE FAITH
CAN.
People can’t believe it, but this is actually something Krsna is
trying to test. It is well known that He is only trying to delude you through
His Maya & that Maya is only making you disbelieve all this. The root cause
for all that is your anarthas. We (people of this world) have been actually
offensive against Krsna & have accumulated a huge pile of anarthas &
therefore are in delusions like this. But with sadhna bhakti when these anarthas
are cleansed & the mirror of heart becomes soft & clear, Krsna’s image
automatically starts appearing in front of us (this is also what Lord Siva says
in Ramcaritmanas & is written at my places).
And if you (& those
many people) don’t want to accept these facts, then I know I can’t just
show REAL compassion (by making you believe all this) upon you unless &
until Krsna wants so. I know you can never believe in those truths without
Krsna’s will - by His divine grace only you can believe in these
truths.
Anyway, if you’re experiencing lack of that “real faith” or
heaven’t experienced it before & want to experience it, I’d advise you chant
Harinama 64 rounds a day for a week & if even then you don’t get faith then
better go & take diksha from Pandit Ananta Dasa Babaji at Sri Sri Radhakund
& you’ll get automatically what you’re looking for.
Posted by: Sakhicharan Dec 22 2005, 05:12 AM
I probably have it all wrong but aren't there people right now participating in the lilas serving Radha and Krishna in their siddha-deha? Or is Goloka an empirical geographical location like going to Honolulu? Aren't there people like that right now serving that way, and that is their literal bonafide and historical fact? But we are blind to it, right? We are side by side looking at the same thing, but our senses are not capting it, theirs are. Then isn't it possible that there is a chariot in the sky as a literal bona fide historical fact, but we are also blind to it?
The thing nearest to us so often (always) appears as the farthest..
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 22 2005, 06:29 AM
Tri-sandhyam, thank you for your
answer. However your point is not was I was questioning. Goloka is described as
a Spiritual World, not a physical one. My questions had to do with the
descriptions that Sukadev gave about our physical Solar
System.
Vishwajeet, I appreciate
your response and clarifications. I am not arguing against faith.
Everyone has faith that is not dependent on objective or scientific facts. When
one boards a plane to go somewhere, one has full faith that the plane will not
crash, and one will arrive safely at his/her choice of destination. Of course,
no one knows that they will arrive safely, but they have faith that they
shall. Even though this faith is blind, it is not misplaced or wrong. So the
issue of faith is not something I disagree with.
I am simply asking why
Sukadev related descriptions about our Solar System that have been shown to be
scientifically incorrect. A Vaishnava told me that the Life & Lilas of Lord
Krsna are indisputable and literal events based on the authority
of Sukadev, an enligtened and omniscient Spiritual Master. However, when it came
to Suka's description of our Solar System, this Vaishanva argued that Sukadev
was not to be believed. This made me wonder how Vaishavas can accept
unverifiable information as indisputable and literal, yet
reject the authority of Sukadev on matters pertaining to our Solar
System. It was this discussion that prompted my questions in this
thread.
Hope that clears things up.
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 22 2005, 06:49 AM
I know that those are meant as "physical" descriptions and not as "spiritual" ones.
My question is what is the difference between the physical world and the spiritual world?
Do people physically get transported in space geographically to a "spiritual world" during life or after death, like one transports oneself in physical space in an aeroplane to go to another country?
This is what I was asking at the end of post #12 when I asked:
Why are "spiritualized versions of events" necessarily events that "do not literally actually happen on earth" but geographically somewhere else?
Where it the spiritual world?
Are these two different worlds or is it a matter of consciousness?
We see the physical world and we do not see sun-chariots or Radha Krishna. Yet maybe others see the same physical world manifesting these things and they are just as empirical actual and historical (through spiritual senses) as tasting an apple is empirical, actual and historical (through material senses).
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 22 2005, 06:58 AM
Look at this story about Saci Dulal Babaji talking about this world versus
that world:
" Babaji Maharaja described how he was sweeping a lane in
Vrindavan, absorbed in his service and the Lord’s name, when he fainted. As he
lay unconscious of this world, he became conscious of that one. He witnessed the
spiritual world, Krishna lila. Radha came up to him and told him to ‘write books
in Bengali for the people of this world.’ The two world are not in different
places geographically – only the spirit world is ‘moving’ so fast you
cannot experience it till ‘you’ move that fast; i.e. faster than the mind,
heart speed.
Sacidulal Babaji told the story with such a
‘matter-of-fact’ tone..."
Maybe it is not about going to another world
geographically, maybe there is no other geographical world to go to (who
knows?), but it is instead transformation of consciousness that takes you from
one place to the next, even if you are not really going anywhere, like in this
story. (?)
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 22 2005, 07:05 AM
That's truly inconceivable.
Anyway,
we do go there, whether it's like a waking up from a dream or going
through a vehicle (Garuda, in this case) as related at many places in
scriptures. The spiritual world is far far away (almost infinite distance) from
here & with material perception the distance is really very ver large &
there are infinite universes actually existing. The spiritual world is
beyond even the cluster of these infinite universes from where the Brahmajyoti
comes out ... as there in Srimad Bhagvatam & Brahma Samhita & our tattva
siddhantas. And it is also possible to have infinite speed for somebody, as
Kakabhusundi has. He is a crow here (still livinig on earth) who is immortal
& (& invisible, of course). Read Ramcarimanas to know better
about Him. The book Ramcarimanas is also a book written in trance by
Gosvami Tulasi Dasji (I guess you know that). When we see the spiritual world from here (after becoming a siddha), we actually gain a divine transcendental vision to see the things that far away (all by Krsna's mercy - all possible).
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 22 2005, 07:14 AM
Tri-sandhyam, honestly I don't know
the answers to your questions.
If the spiritual and physical worlds are
one and the same (with the differences being in spiritual perception), then we
are still talking about the same data. For example, Suka gave a distance of 12
million miles from the Earth to Saturn. The Saturn deity resides in the planet
of Saturn (so the spiritual aspect is associated with the physical one). Science
has established a distance of 746 million miles from Earth to Saturn. An
astounding difference of 734 million miles when compared to Suka's
estimation. I simply asked why Suka (the authority of the Bhagavatha) attempted
to give actual distances from the Earth to different planets, but got the
information wrong.
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 22 2005, 07:28 AM
If the spiritual and physical worlds are one and the same (with the differences being in spiritual perception), then we are still talking about the same data.
By the way, spiritual & material worlds are NOT one & the same. There is infinite distance (see my previous post). By Krsna's mercy we're sometimes able to see the prakaTa lila here by the transcendental vision. The aprakaTa lila is at that distance (infinite).
Although I'm nobody (nothing) to comment on words of such a high mahatma, still I think He was either meaning something else by it (in some honorable rasika way) or was probably seeing the prakaTa lila.
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 22 2005, 07:43 AM
The Saturn deity resides in the planet of Saturn (so the spiritual aspect is associated with the physical one). Science has established a distance of 746 million miles from Earth to Saturn. An astounding difference of 734 million miles when compared to Suka's estimation. I simply asked why Suka (the authority of the Bhagavatha) attempted to give actual distances from the Earth to different planets, but got the information wrong.
You just can't say the information as wrong. The information is correct according to spiritual perception (which is far more real & true than our mundane perception). And you just can't say ominiscence (knowledge coming in divine manner from Absolute Brahman) can give wrong info because everything is created by Brahman (Bhagavan) Himself. So, anyway whether it is on our scale or on the scale of God, IT IS ALL TRUE. Our scaling system can be different (& incorrect) but God can't be wrong. This is because all material things (technology & all) that we try to make is actually imperfect but Krsna (the ultimate source of even material omniscence) can NEVER be wrong. He is Acyuta - infallible Lord. We can see wrong (by God's delusion) but God can't say wrong....
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 22 2005, 07:45 AM
In your previous post you said:
What is infinite distance? Infinite means you can't measure. What does transcendental (infinite) distance and the spiritual world have to do with quantitatively measuring close or far with our measurements? Can anyone measure infinite distance and say either how far or close it is from the physical world or from this point or from that point?
and then you said:
If you go at infinite speed then what is infinite distance to you? Is it even distance what so ever?
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 22 2005, 08:07 AM
Infinite distance means really very large distance that we can't measure. It has nothing to do with
If you go at infinite speed then what is infinite distance to you? Is it even distance what so ever?
By infinite speed, I meant we can increase the speed to unlimited amount. The crow Kakabhusundi has experience of travelling across the universes & he was once given a boon for abAdha gati (unlimited speed) by Lord Siva & he once went inside mouth of Lord Ramcandra while once playing with Lord in His childhood & saw infinite universes inside Him, & could travel across the universes in the "cosmos inside the transcendental body of Lord Ramcandra" who from outside was just like a small boy. The story goes on, the following all then happenned inside stomach of Lord Ramcandra:
Kakabhusundi stayed & travelled in that cosmos & saw many universes & travelled in many of them & saw even Himself & Lord Ramcandra too! And He stayed inside for many kalpas & when once Tretayuga came he requested Ramcandra to forgive Him (read Ramcaritmanas (uttara kAnDa) for full story) & then he came out of Lord's mouth.
In the present world not a single moment had passed & everything was all OK. Kakabhusundi wasn't "late" in this world (ouside Lord's mouth) despite having spent several hundred kalpas inside!
So, dear tri-sandhyam, everything is possible. When we talk of trancendental world - everything is possible - even infinite becomes finite (measurable) & finite becomes infinite (if Lord wants). It's all true. .....
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 22 2005, 08:13 AM
Good point. I agree with everything in that post especially enjoy the last
line: "even infinite becomes finite (measurable) & finite becomes
infinite."
It is true even the infinite becomes measurable, which makes
it even more enjoyable.
_________
If there is infinite distance
separating us from Radha and Krishna but like the crow Kakabhusundi or like Saci
Dulal Babaji says, (both living on earth), if it is a matter of going at "heart
speed," or having the "boon of infinite speed" to see these things, then what
does infinite distance have to do with it when your siddha-deha (though still on
earth) is going at infinite speed to match it?
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 22 2005, 12:07 PM
_________
If there is infinite distance separating us from Radha and Krishna but like the crow Kakabhusundi or like Saci Dulal Babaji says, (both living on earth), if it is a matter of going at "heart speed," or having the "boon of infinite speed" to see these things, then what does infinite distance have to do with it when your siddha-deha (though still on earth) is going at infinite speed to match it?
Nothing. It's just Krsna's will - just to make it more enjoyable as you say. Maybe Krsna likes riding on Garuda infinite (very large) distances in almost no time with His devotees when taking them to His abode after the siddhas leave their bodies here.
By the way,
I think Babaji Maharaja was seeing prakaTa lIlA in trance at that time - which
occurs on earth only (by Krsna's mercy). It's like fire-sometimes visible &
sometimes not. If you want to know about that lIlA then
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=149 the chapter
40 of Jaiva Dharma
Posted by: Kulapavana Dec 22 2005, 12:44 PM
In the reality which we currently perceive with our physical senses, the perception of space is actually quite subtle and arises mostly in the mind. The further away from us we reach in this space, the more "mental" it becomes. You could travel as fast as the light, and still never be able to leave this universe, even as Bhagavatam says it is only so many millions of yojanas across... Lord Brahma travelled down the stem of the lotus flower in which he was born, and could never reach it's end. The distances given in the Bhagavatam give us some idea of the proportions of the universe as seen by the great sages. Even the Himalayan mountains extend higher in THEIR space (the space as seen by the great sages). All WE see, is the lower parts. The same is with the rest of the Universe, the Moon, the Sun, and all other lokas...
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 23 2005, 05:43 AM
Kulapavana, your point may be true,
nevertheless it does not explain the distances to the planets given by
Sukadev.
For example, Sukadev gave a description to the Himalayas.
Sukadev said that the Himalayas are 80,000 miles high (SB: 5:16:9). In
actuality, they are 4.92 miles high. 80,000 miles would situate the summit in
outer space, 1/4 the distance to the Moon. According to your statements, Sukadev
was giving a description to the "space seen by great sages". We only see
4.92 miles to the Himalayas, but Sukadev could see 80,000 miles because he is a
great sage.
However, when it comes to the planetary distances, the
problem with the "space seen by great sages" does not apply.
Sukadev said Saturn was 12 thousand miles away from Earth. Actually, it
is 746 million miles away from Earth. In this instance, Sudadev is
not seeing the "space seen by great sages", because Sudadev's
estimation was short 734 million miles.
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 23 2005, 05:53 AM
Vishwajeet thanks for your comments and reading suggestions.
The
obvious question is why would estimating the distance from the earth as being
closer as opposed to further make the estimation any less fascinating or less of
spiritualized consciousness? So is the rule that spiritualized consciousness
means that you see things as taller and further than regular people do? Who
says. Maybe it goes both ways, sometimes expansive and far sometimes
"introspansive" and near. Why is the former any more fascinating?
Posted by: KrishnaPetal Dec 23 2005, 06:20 AM
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 23 2005, 06:34 AM
My take on it is this: When he talks about the planets he is not "exaggerating" and when he talks about the lilas he is not exaggerating. He is just experiencing things more subtly.
So are you asking, if everyone can perceive those historical Krishna lilas regardless of spiritual or material standpoint, then why is it that the planet descriptions in the same book are only true from a spiritual standpoint, but from a material standpoint they are "wrong." Shouldn't the planet distances be correct from a material standpoint too if the lilas are? I don't know. If that is how it is, maybe it is wrong to expect intellectual consistency of that kind in sastra. (Intellect is just another sense organ like the eye and tongue after all). The sastra is full of contradictions to a careful reader.
I don't really know if the Krishna historical pastimes are fully observable by all, even though they are historical, and that would be my question.
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 23 2005, 09:14 AM
If you try applying logic like this, there is no end to making you believe all this. No material proof or logic is enough to prove. We are getting information exactly as Krsna wants them to be (in a deluded way). But if we surrender unto Him & involve in dedicated sadhna, we can automatically get answers to all questions like this. This is because it is very difficult (if not impossible) to give spiritual proofs in words. You'll have to work hard in the sadhna to understand & get real belief (faith) in these truths.
If Krsna's historical pastimes would be fully observable by all then what would be need for the game of sadhna (for which everything is going on)? By the way, Krsna's pastimes aren't just historical, but are going on. They are like sun. Sometimes visible in this (our) universe & sometimes in the other (this is for prakaTa lIlAs) & one pastimes are going on at eternal Goloka (called the aprakaTa lIlAs) since beginless time. But when higher perception (transcendental vision) comes to us by Krsna's mercy, then we can view prakaTa & if even advanced we get, then we can view aprakaTa lIlAs too.
The advanced vision will automatically tell you that the spiritual master (Sukadeva Gosvami) is telling the truth. But really speaking, don't expect such an authority to be just say anything wrong (an uttama adhikari is free from four-fold defects including making mistakes & being illusioned, but we are not.
Try http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=3242 to know more). Omniscence is never wrong - it dosen't matter if we (at present level) can check if it was right or wrong. After all Krsna came again in form of Lord Caitanya & said that Srimad Bhagvatam is a spotless literature. And Krsna is God. Not just God but Supreme God. Who wouldn't like to believe Him?
If you don't want to believe then it's OK, realizations will prove everything ultimately. And I know they'll be true since many have realized after becoming siddhas & have ultimately trusted such authorities. One way or the other, at present Vedic texts are most trustable scriptures you can get, never matter you can conceive many things or are beyond your scope & written in words just to give you insight & some depth into "what you can't see?". It's all mercy.
It's all a matter of faith (real faith), that comes only by Krsna's or his devotee's mercy & not by applying our reasoning or logic or by verifying some details by material proofs & observations at mundane level.
Posted by: tri-sandhyam Dec 23 2005, 09:42 AM
What I meant by historical is the people living during the time of Caitanya Mahaprabhu for example could see him whether they were believers with spiritualized perception from sadhana or not.
Posted by: Vishwajeet Dec 23 2005, 10:00 AM
Yes, at that time He became so much merciful that he became visible to all. So he conducted His prakaTa lIlA that way i.e. coming as an incarnation. But you know, he stayed here only till 1534 AD. But does that mean He should come again & again every day? For that higher perception is required with which you can see Him whether He is in this universe or that. As far as verification is concerned, when you'll advance in sadhna enough, then you can also become omniscent & get automatic