|
Post by madanmohandas on Sept 18, 2009 13:58:43 GMT -6
In answer to the question, what creates us? the answer might be that we are not created at all but always exist. Then, what are we? When Brahma and the four Sanas approached Hamsa avatara, they asked him who he was, and he told them the question had no relevence since without knowing who they were themselves why should they ask him who he was. And if they knew who they were then they would also know who he was and have no occasion to question him on his identity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2009 9:22:02 GMT -6
Hello everyone. Looks like you're a kid in a candy store over there, Nitai. I couldn't even get into the collection at the British Museum when I was there. Either I didn't know the secret handshake and password, or my credentials were not in order. Ancient history now... Sunny London? Surely you jest!
I haven't looked at any posts here for quite some time now. I don't get out on the internet much these days, except to check email accounts for messages. Between my day job and working on a fictional novel, there is must not much time or energy for it in my somewhat old age. They had better come up with that anti-aging pill before I really get old, that's all I can say. Now the doctor tells me I have to avoid my drug of choice, ibuprofen, because it is raising my blood pressure. Does anyone know a mantra that lowers blood pressure? I am not losing weight quickly enough (I have no will power when it comes to desserts, especially dark chocolate), and am dreading having to go on a pharmaceutical that might have ghastly side effects.
Anyways... Getting back to the topic at hand:
Here's my take on all of this. I have had some experiences in my life that could never be explained by any known science. Perhaps others here can say the same. I also doubt that they were delusional, as in many cases they were also experienced by other people that were with me at the time. Group hallucinations? Does that sound rational or scientific? I am not saying that there is no rational explanation for those experiences, but science as it is today does not have any explanation. The most extreme example is when I was in the hospital as a teenager and the doctor told my parents that based on blood tests my blood chemistry was so far from normal that he and the other doctors at the hospital could not understand how I was alive. There you have it. Trained medical scientists admitting that I was a case that defied any rational explanation.
So, I think when we are venturing forth into the realm of mysticism and its bedmate religion we are clearly in uncharted territory. I see it as an investigation into the nature of consciousness, which should be a scientific discipline and field of study all its own, yet it currently remains under the purview of physics and biology.
As far as "sanity", that is a relative and inexact term. I think maybe "relevant" is more appropriate, given your objective Nitai. As quantum physics has demonstrated, the universe appears to be a very insane place after all. So we are on a quest for relevance. Sanity is perhaps irrelevant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2009 14:13:32 GMT -6
As far as religion being inflexible (non-correcting), that is always going to be inherent to such institutions, although if they are too inflexible, they will not survive as people eventually abandon them altogether. The benefits of religions are either imagined or they are real. I think everyone here would agree that there is plenty in the imaginary category.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 19, 2009 16:32:24 GMT -6
In answer to the question, what creates us? the answer might be that we are not created at all but always exist. Then, what are we? When Brahma and the four Sanas approached Hamsa avatara, they asked him who he was, and he told them the question had no relevence since without knowing who they were themselves why should they ask him who he was. And if they knew who they were then they would also know who he was and have no occasion to question him on his identity. Well I guess that is what this discussion is really about. Who are we? Are we spiritual beings or is that a concept based on a mistaken distinction that is only today beginning to be corrected? Are we both matter and spirit or rather spatter or maybe mirit, some singular substance that is both material and spiritual and more. I am not sure we can entirely trust the old scriptures to solve this problem for us.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 19, 2009 16:55:45 GMT -6
Welcome back mojo. Long time no see. Thanks for your comments.
In response to your comment I must say that I don't know what to make of quantum physics and I suspect that most scientists don't either. It is interesting to see how many people try to rope it in to whatever they are trying to sell: free will, indeterminacy, supernatural intervention in the natural world, etc. etc.
Also, there is a "new" field called Consciousness Studies. It at least in some forms seeks to take the experiences people have in meditation and other forms of directed concentration seriously. There is (or was) even a journal devoted to it. We should explore it in more detail in this forum.
My sense is that all of the rituals and practices and scriptural descriptions and such are aimed at training or giving a certain form to consciousness or whatever cit is. We should perhaps take more seriously the idea that Krsna is cinmayi, made of cit or consciousness. These are all ways of seeding our consciousness with Krsna whose natural element it is.
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 20, 2009 14:15:14 GMT -6
I see it as an investigation into the nature of consciousness, which should be a scientific discipline and field of study all its own, yet it currently remains under the purview of physics and biology. Psychology to be precise, although biological factors come into consideration when you consider the neural bases of consciousness. A recent issue of Nature contains review articles on the evolution of synapses and other things. The main issue is that spirituality treats consciousness (or the 'soul') as something apart from the body. This is dualism. Research has shown that this is not true and that consciousness is dependent on brain function, which leads us to take a monistic outlook.
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 20, 2009 14:19:00 GMT -6
I also like the way ZVS put it, and it is also something that I've been considering for the last couple of years or so: How far does making Vaishnavism 'sane' go before Vaishnavism itself becomes pointless?
My strategy has been something like Occam's Razor, cutting away the dead wood. There is no limit to this cutting because everything is up for question, and if that means everything will eventually be cut away then I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles...
|
|
|
Post by malati on Sept 22, 2009 3:39:54 GMT -6
Happy to try some of those ideas out here. It has certainly been on my mind for many years now. I will try to come up with a more or less organized way of presenting them. By the way, I see that your recordings are taking shape. Listened to some of your samples the other day. They sound grand. I look forward to hearing those when they are complete. So the question on my mind nowadays is "why do we want to love Krsna?" Is it because he is god? Is that any reason to love someone? What role does Krsna's godhood play in our coming to love him? If that were completely absent would he be less attractive or more? These questions have much to do with the relationship of CV to religion. Any ideas? Nitai, Thanks for the encouragement on the recordings. That means a lot to me, as I stand in such awe of past artistic achievements that I sometimes wonder if I have anything of value to give. If I have any input on the Sane Vaishnavism issue, it would be this - and it is an honest question, not a fatalist or critical one: How far does making Vaishnavism 'sane' go before Vaishnavism itself becomes pointless?What I mean is, to a great extent, I understand fully why ACBS forced his disciples to accept the most ridiculous propositions and blatant fallacies in the shastras. He had a point - unfortunately - that once you throw out one bit, the rest is up for grabs. Now, I'm no fan or advocate of fundamentalism, especially when it's required and enforced like that. But I see where he was coming from. I once read someone as saying, "Perhaps the science in the Fifth Canto of the Bhagavatam is all wrong. But what does that have to do with our love for Krsna?" This was met with enthusiastic approval in responses, and I got the distinct impression that it had soothed a just-under-the-surface existential quandary being experienced by everyone who read it. To me, it was completely unsatisfactory. My thoughts were, "(a) If the Bhagavatam is wrong, then (b) obviously it does not come from a higher source, which means (c) I have no reason to trust that Radha and Krishna exist, and therefore (d) trying to love them is as pointless as trying to believe that the sun revolves around the flat earth." I realize that, with that specific example, other interpretations have been posited - for example, the 5th Canto is a guided vision, not meant to be a scientific description, etc. But in your Sane Vaishnavism, you embrace a number of ideas that the fundamentalist wing would consider unabashed heresy. You've admitted to yourself that the scriptures were not written in one inspired go by an eternal Vishnu-tattva seer hiding in the Himalayas. You've admitted that science, as an objectively provable field, must be taken as truth. You've decided that the descriptions of the universe's creation and setup are incorrect. And so on. The inevitable conclusion I start to draw, as much as I find this open-mindedness refreshing and encouraging, is, at what point does Vaishnavism/Vedism/etc die underneath the weight of doubt? If one is practicing a scripturally-based, intensified lifestyle of devotion to a deity/deities described and given existence and credence by certain texts, then how far can this doubt of scriptural word go before Radha, Krishna, and bhakti itself become just as questioned, just as unreasonable? In other words, why dedicate one's life to an aspect of scriptures that one otherwise rejects? This is the dilemma I see, which commonly leads to either fundamentalism, or atheism. I'm curious to see how you find yourself in the middle, and how you can unite your devotion with your sense of reason. ZVS, you have raised some very interesting points . In my opinion the shastras are not meant to be science textbooks. The shastras answer different types of questions from the questions science answer. John Polkinghorne, a former theoretical physicist turned theologian posed a question in reflection of this matter. "Why is the water in the kettle boiling?" It can be answered in 2 ways. The water is boiling because the heat from the fire raises the temperature of the water until the molecules move faster and faster so that some escape from the surface and become gas. The other answer is: The water in the kettle is boiling because we want some tea. Aristotle called the explanation of how the the phenomenon takes place the "efficient cause". And the answer " because we want some tea" as the "final cause". Narayan Maharaj gave a similar analogy. The clay material, the water, the moulding, the firing and the whole process of producing the pot as the "efficient cause". And the final cause is that " we need a pot to contain the water". Science and faith maybe like that. Like there's a neat separation of the domains of science and faith. But in reality , from time to time, they do interlap and conflict with each other. So how do we deal with that. In an interview with the Nobel prize winner physicist David Gross, he mentioned that he once sat with the Dalai Lama in a conference and the Dalai told him that where science says differently from the Buddhist scriptures, the Dalai has asked that their shastra be corrected to conform to science. The prominent God philosopher Alvin Plantinga said that where it is difficult to understand what the bible really mean, reason should prevail. As an example, if the scripture says that the earth is flat when its obviously is not, then we have to take as truth what science says. He further said that if on the other hand, the bible is clear enough and makes more sense and science has no definitive take on it then we take the bible as truth. Or in our case the Bhagavatam. One example I can personally cite is in the area of consciousness-- the most obvious to us but also the most baffling. Science is still squabbling about its true nature, how consciousness seem to be inseparable from experience, why should physical processing give rise to a richer inner life at all? That it seems objectionably unreasonable that it does, and yet it does. Some say its an illusion and just a by product of the brain like the digestive system. And many other more explanations are offered by science. In short in science, consciousness is reducible to material explanation. However , theist books including our shastras give an alternative explanation of what consciousness maybe -- that consciousness is a fundamental reality and can not be reducible by any scientific explanation. However in a landmark conference, David Chalmers an Australian mathematician, and philospher of the mind who did much of his work in the U.S. posits that consciuosness is irreducible, not reducible to any material explanation and fundametal like the law of gravity which requires no explanation of its origin, it just is. And may well be explained in relation to the metaphysical framework. So I think this is a good step for a wider understanding of the topic of consciousness. Someone said that the shastra should be taken as truth within the proper context and yes, context is reason. I remember that one of the controversial idea in the Bhagavatam is about the sun being closer to the earth than the moon. I think that we should always take the shastra as truth within the context of reason. So it may be right within a proper context. If taken as a historical fact, it is true. Without a telescope, in the ancient times, the distance of things are determined by the size of the object. So yes, because from a naked eye the sun appears bigger, therefore in that context it is closer. So in that context the shastra is correct. Moreover, as a metaphor its is also true. The reach of the sun by virtue of its rays extend far into the world, therefore as a metaphor it is correct. Of course as a scientific fact it is wrong. Also about the billion bodyguards of Ungrasena. Well that is physically impossible especially looking at the number of people who have lived on this planet in the ancient times. I dont take that as literal truth but as a philosophical narratives. So in that regard the shastra is true. I take the shastra as absolute truth but not as absolute fact because truth like white light is composed of different spectrum of colours. I hope i dont give a confused opinion. Hare Krishna
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 22, 2009 11:41:02 GMT -6
However in a landmark conference, David Chalmers an Australian mathematician, and philospher of the mind who did much of his work in the U.S. posits that consciuosness is irreducible, not reducible to any material explanation and fundametal like the law of gravity which requires no explanation of its origin, it just is. And may well be explained in relation to the metaphysical framework. So I think this is a good step for a wider understanding of the topic of consciousness. Um, no. David Chalmers is one of the very few philosophers who posit a dualistic theory of consciousness. He is not a (neuro)scientist, but a philosopher. Just like Daniel Dennett is. Either way, he is in a company all on his own because a dualistic theory of consciousness doesn't much evidence in it's favour. Furthermore, Chalmers himself has expressed concerns that his work is being hijacked by ID'ers. I agree with him on that point. It never fails to amaze me how theists will seize upon everything they can that has the faintest possibility of propping up their ideas. It's going on right now with quantum physics, although that is a whole other ball game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2009 20:21:47 GMT -6
Nitai, Thanks for the encouragement on the recordings. That means a lot to me, as I stand in such awe of past artistic achievements that I sometimes wonder if I have anything of value to give. If I have any input on the Sane Vaishnavism issue, it would be this - and it is an honest question, not a fatalist or critical one: How far does making Vaishnavism 'sane' go before Vaishnavism itself becomes pointless?What I mean is, to a great extent, I understand fully why ACBS forced his disciples to accept the most ridiculous propositions and blatant fallacies in the shastras. He had a point - unfortunately - that once you throw out one bit, the rest is up for grabs. Now, I'm no fan or advocate of fundamentalism, especially when it's required and enforced like that. But I see where he was coming from. I once read someone as saying, "Perhaps the science in the Fifth Canto of the Bhagavatam is all wrong. But what does that have to do with our love for Krsna?" This was met with enthusiastic approval in responses, and I got the distinct impression that it had soothed a just-under-the-surface existential quandary being experienced by everyone who read it. To me, it was completely unsatisfactory. My thoughts were, "(a) If the Bhagavatam is wrong, then (b) obviously it does not come from a higher source, which means (c) I have no reason to trust that Radha and Krishna exist, and therefore (d) trying to love them is as pointless as trying to believe that the sun revolves around the flat earth." I realize that, with that specific example, other interpretations have been posited - for example, the 5th Canto is a guided vision, not meant to be a scientific description, etc. But in your Sane Vaishnavism, you embrace a number of ideas that the fundamentalist wing would consider unabashed heresy. You've admitted to yourself that the scriptures were not written in one inspired go by an eternal Vishnu-tattva seer hiding in the Himalayas. You've admitted that science, as an objectively provable field, must be taken as truth. You've decided that the descriptions of the universe's creation and setup are incorrect. And so on. The inevitable conclusion I start to draw, as much as I find this open-mindedness refreshing and encouraging, is, at what point does Vaishnavism/Vedism/etc die underneath the weight of doubt? If one is practicing a scripturally-based, intensified lifestyle of devotion to a deity/deities described and given existence and credence by certain texts, then how far can this doubt of scriptural word go before Radha, Krishna, and bhakti itself become just as questioned, just as unreasonable? In other words, why dedicate one's life to an aspect of scriptures that one otherwise rejects? This is the dilemma I see, which commonly leads to either fundamentalism, or atheism. I'm curious to see how you find yourself in the middle, and how you can unite your devotion with your sense of reason. ZVS, you have raised some very interesting points . In my opinion the shastras are not meant to be science textbooks. The shastras answer different types of questions from the questions science answer. John Polkinghorne, a former theoretical physicist turned theologian posed a question in reflection of this matter. "Why is the water in the kettle boiling?" It can be answered in 2 ways. The water is boiling because the heat from the fire raises the temperature of the water until the molecules move faster and faster so that some escape from the surface and become gas. The other answer is: The water in the kettle is boiling because we want some tea. Aristotle called the explanation of how the the phenomenon takes place the "efficient cause". And the answer " because we want some tea" as the "final cause". Narayan Maharaj gave a similar analogy. The clay material, the water, the moulding, the firing and the whole process of producing the pot as the "efficient cause". And the final cause is that " we need a pot to contain the water". Science and faith maybe like that. Like there's a neat separation of the domains of science and faith. But in reality , from time to time, they do interlap and conflict with each other. So how do we deal with that. In an interview with the Nobel prize winner physicist David Gross, he mentioned that he once sat with the Dalai Lama in a conference and the Dalai told him that where science says differently from the Buddhist scriptures, the Dalai has asked that their shastra be corrected to conform to science. The prominent God philosopher Alvin Plantinga said that where it is difficult to understand what the bible really mean, reason should prevail. As an example, if the scripture says that the earth is flat when its obviously is not, then we have to take as truth what science says. He further said that if on the other hand, the bible is clear enough and makes more sense and science has no definitive take on it then we take the bible as truth. Or in our case the Bhagavatam. One example I can personally cite is in the area of consciousness-- the most obvious to us but also the most baffling. Science is still squabbling about its true nature, how consciousness seem to be inseparable from experience, why should physical processing give rise to a richer inner life at all? That it seems objectionably unreasonable that it does, and yet it does. Some say its an illusion and just a by product of the brain like the digestive system. And many other more explanations are offered by science. In short in science, consciousness is reducible to material explanation. However , theist books including our shastras give an alternative explanation of what consciousness maybe -- that consciousness is a fundamental reality and can not be reducible by any scientific explanation. However in a landmark conference, David Chalmers an Australian mathematician, and philospher of the mind who did much of his work in the U.S. posits that consciuosness is irreducible, not reducible to any material explanation and fundametal like the law of gravity which requires no explanation of its origin, it just is. And may well be explained in relation to the metaphysical framework. So I think this is a good step for a wider understanding of the topic of consciousness. Someone said that the shastra should be taken as truth within the proper context and yes, context is reason. I remember that one of the controversial idea in the Bhagavatam is about the sun being closer to the earth than the moon. I think that we should always take the shastra as truth within the context of reason. So it may be right within a proper context. If taken as a historical fact, it is true. Without a telescope, in the ancient times, the distance of things are determined by the size of the object. So yes, because from a naked eye the sun appears bigger, therefore in that context it is closer. So in that context the shastra is correct. Moreover, as a metaphor its is also true. The reach of the sun by virtue of its rays extend far into the world, therefore as a metaphor it is correct. Of course as a scientific fact it is wrong. Also about the billion bodyguards of Ungrasena. Well that is physically impossible especially looking at the number of people who have lived on this planet in the ancient times. I dont take that as literal truth but as a philosophical narratives. So in that regard the shastra is true. I take the shastra as absolute truth but not as absolute fact because truth like white light is composed of different spectrum of colours. I hope i dont give a confused opinion. Hare Krishna Just a word about what sastra says about the sun. It doesn't say the sun is closer, that was Prabhupada's misunderstanding. It says the moon is above the sun. Without understanding Puranic cosmology that appears to mean that the sun is closer to the earth. But it doesn't. We need to understand that Bhu-mandala is a flat plane in Puranic cosmology, and above our plane is the sun and moon. But, the sun is much further away from Jambudvipa (where we live at the center of bhu-mandala) while at the same time the moon is higher above us than the sun. To show how this works imagine a circular field 1 mile diameter as Bhu-mandala. In the center there is a circular island called Jambudvipa where we live. Take a ball and hang it 100 feet above the field and 100 feet away from the center, that is the moon. Take another ball and hang it 50 feet above and half a mile away from the center, that is the sun. The moon is higher than the sun but further away. Prabhupada misunderstood that and claimed that because the moon is higher above us than the sun according to the Puranas, that the moon was therefore further away from us than the sun. He would use that argument when he would claim that the moon landing was a hoax, saying that they couldn't have gotten to the moon as fast as they claimed because it was further from us than the sun. As for the sun appearing larger than the moon. Actually it is interesting to note that they appear to be around the same size even though the sun is much much larger. This can be noted during an eclipse, depending what type of eclipse the sun and moon will either be the same size and the moon will cover the sun precisely, or the moon will appear to be a tiny bit smaller. It depends where the moon is in relation to the sun in the earth elliptical orbit -- sometimes the earth and moon is closer to the sun than other times. The reason they appear to be the same size is because the moon is 400 times closer to the earth than the sun AND 400 times smaller than the sun, making them appear the same size from our perspective thereby allowing eclipses to be the way they are. This astonishing "coincidence" has bewildered atheistic scientists, add to that fact that if the moon was slightly different in size, mass or distance from the earth, life would be unlivable. See "Who Built the Moon?" at: www.cookpr.com/press/watkins_moon.html
|
|
|
Post by malati on Sept 23, 2009 3:49:39 GMT -6
I see it as an investigation into the nature of consciousness, which should be a scientific discipline and field of study all its own, yet it currently remains under the purview of physics and biology. Psychology to be precise, although biological factors come into consideration when you consider the neural bases of consciousness. A recent issue of Nature contains review articles on the evolution of synapses and other things. The main issue is that spirituality treats consciousness (or the 'soul') as something apart from the body. This is dualism. Research has shown that this is not true and that consciousness is dependent on brain function, which leads us to take a monistic outlook. Knowledge of science has no practical use to me. I dont work in that field and I'm just a simple person. But because as a GV, I believe that Krishna is the ground of all being that pervades the entire cosmic manifestation in His one aspect, so I try to see what other people studying nature can see from Krishna's "handiwork". Actually, the study of consciousness is a study of the convergence of many disciplines eg. philosophy of the mind, neuroscience, psychology, artificial intelligence, quantum physics, psychophysical. Being a GV I'm hoping that they will eventually bridge the different domains which will led to a fundamental principle. But psychology is hopeless on its own, I think , because even from the words of Marvin Minsky, one of the top experts in the world in the field of cognitive science and artificial intelligence, "psychology has generated so many theories but has not explained much, whereas physics with only a few has explained so much much more."
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 23, 2009 11:35:11 GMT -6
But psychology is hopeless on its own, I think , because even from the words of Marvin Minsky, one of the top experts in the world in the field of cognitive science and artificial intelligence, "psychology has generated so many theories but has not explained much, whereas physics with only a few has explained so much much more." Yes, Richard Feynman said more or less the same thing. These 'top' scientists should know better than to say silly things, in my opinion. My answer: give it time. Medical science today is the result of many milllenia-worth of trial-and-error. The science of the mind has only been seriously researched for around 200 years or so. Give it time, it needs to get grounding. It can explain plenty of things, just not everything.
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Sept 23, 2009 19:44:09 GMT -6
How much time are you going to give it? Science, as we know it, does not go beyond the sphere of material energies. It will make a constant progress but its' subject matter is constantly in the realm of hard and subtle matter. Transcendence is not included. In CV we are talking about transcendence, which is beyond the laws of this universe. I have to admit that knowledge about brain functions and other scientific data is very interesting and helps many in their quest for saner life; thus giving many an opportunity to delve into the realm of transcendental knowledge. After all, bhakta will offer his knowledge to Hari as an offering of love, as he does so with anything else.
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Sept 24, 2009 9:33:03 GMT -6
Just a word about what sastra says about the sun. It doesn't say the sun is closer, that was Prabhupada's misunderstanding. It says the moon is above the sun. Without understanding Puranic cosmology that appears to mean that the sun is closer to the earth. But it doesn't. We need to understand that Bhu-mandala is a flat plane in Puranic cosmology, and above our plane is the sun and moon. But, the sun is much further away from Jambudvipa (where we live at the center of bhu-mandala) while at the same time the moon is higher above us than the sun. To show how this works imagine a circular field 1 mile diameter as Bhu-mandala. In the center there is a circular island called Jambudvipa where we live. Take a ball and hang it 100 feet above the field and 100 feet away from the center, that is the moon. Take another ball and hang it 50 feet above and half a mile away from the center, that is the sun. The moon is higher than the sun but further away. Prabhupada misunderstood that and claimed that because the moon is higher above us than the sun according to the Puranas, that the moon was therefore further away from us than the sun. He would use that argument when he would claim that the moon landing was a hoax, saying that they couldn't have gotten to the moon as fast as they claimed because it was further from us than the sun. Buddy, the following is not offered in a mean spirit, but rather confusion and honest curiosity: I can't figure out where you are going with this. You are correcting ACBS' interpretation of puranic cosmology, and I assume the motivation for that is because you are dismayed at how un-scientific it must look when misunderstood as such. However, you then go off into an explanation that is just as comically un-scientific - Flat planes? Earth as an island? I am just trying to figure out what your purpose was. Also, what is so astounding about the relative positions and sizes of the moon and sun? After all, life on earth only exists because all the conditions are astoundingly just right. This obviously doesn't happen too often, hence our failure to yet find life on other planets. (And yes, yes, I know - some will interject intelligent design here; but doesn't the sheer rarity of Life lend weight to it being randomized? If a Creator were moving the chess pieces around, why not populate the universe a little more?)
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Sept 24, 2009 9:51:01 GMT -6
Well put, zvs! You have really captured the core of the problem and I thank you for doing it so well. Nitai, I really enjoyed your thoughts here and found the attendant sentiments to be, actually, quite beautiful. It's obvious how C.V. has imparted such richness, joy and depth into your life. If nothing else, that makes it of serious value. The thought that came to me while reading what you wrote here: ...is: What, then, transforms the Bhagavata life from artistic appreciation into a theological lifestyle? I agree with you that the artistic quality of the Sanskrit and Bengali canon is rather high, and that the rasika writings, from Bh.P to the Gosvamis onward, are some of the most emotionally intense pieces of writing known to man. But what elevates this appreciation into a desire to follow after the (potentially fictional) characters and seek to enter into their truth after death? For example, I feel very deep pangs when reading Yeats, or Nabokov, etc. I find such beauty in their work. The way Yeats expresses the truths of life; the way I cried when I finished Lolita (even though I'm not sure one is supposed to - such is the ability of the author to manipulate the heartstrings). But at the end of the day, they are works of art - not bases for philosophies or lifestyles or meditations or, let's say it, religions. So, my question here is, does finding emotional, philosophical, and artistic merit in the scriptures amount to a reason to follow them? If we're treating them as stories with deep meanings and deep effects on one's psyche, does that justify building an entire life around them? It seems to me there has to be something more to it - some other motivation, some other reason to take it to that level. And that's why I am bothered by the idea that so many things in the scriptures are so obviously not true. If I were to trust something as a description - or even indicator - of a higher truth, I would expect it to at least know the things *I* can observe clearly. Why should we accept knowledge of Radha and Krishna and rasa - which knowledge clearly cannot be ascertained from here on earth - from a sourcebook that is so plainly wrong on things that are relatively easy to observe? Once again, this is not meant as a challenge to your faith or lifestyle, but rather an honest probe into a fascinating mind - and an attempt to ask honest questions that, frankly, I've never asked anyone. I like that we can discuss things like this here, as intelligent and understanding people (especially now that you have to sign in!).
|
|