|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 5, 2009 16:16:05 GMT -6
I cannot stress how interested/curious I am to read the findings of your quest for Sane Vaishnavism. 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? |
|
|
|
Post by jagannathdas on Sept 9, 2009 6:48:37 GMT -6
Nitaidas - would be interested in meeting for discussions too if you have the time during your stay in London.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 12, 2009 18:00:53 GMT -6
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? I just spotted this quote posted by a friend: "Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known." - Blaise Pascal. |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Sept 14, 2009 4:53:03 GMT -6
Now I know why Buddy is quiet. The cat is away!
Nitadas said: I don't see science as reliable only up to a certain point.
Sorry for stirring the nest again.
Nitaidas if you have read on science as much as I have done then you will know that your statement deserves some qualification.
When I come back next, I'll post the article by physicist , Paul Davies, entitled Taking Science on Faith.
The more the physicists know about quantum physics the more we know that your statement is not exactly right. Leaving classical physics, the physical reality has taken on a whole new dimension with quantum physics.
From my reading, this is what I learned. Take light as an example. Quantum physics has concluded that light is a wave and particle at the same time.
However, the method we choose to measure or assess light will determine whether light as we measure it is wave or particle. We will not be able to measure it as wave and particle at the same time. It would be either a wave or a particle as far as we are concerned.
Light as a wave and particle at the same time only has truth in mathematical terms but not in physical assessment.
I hope my explanation is clear.
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Sept 16, 2009 7:57:11 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 18, 2009 7:47:12 GMT -6
Now I know why Buddy is quiet. The cat is away! Nitadas said: I don't see science as reliable only up to a certain point.Sorry for stirring the nest again. Nitaidas if you have read on science as much as I have done then you will know that your statement deserves some qualification. When I come back next, I'll post the article by physicist , Paul Davies, entitled Taking Science on Faith.The more the physicists know about quantum physics the more we know that your statement is not exactly right. Leaving classical physics, the physical reality has taken on a whole new dimension with quantum physics. From my reading, this is what I learned. Take light as an example. Quantum physics has concluded that light is a wave and particle at the same time. However, the method we choose to measure or assess light will determine whether light as we measure it is wave or particle. We will not be able to measure it as wave and particle at the same time. It would be either a wave or a particle as far as we are concerned. Light as a wave and particle at the same time only has truth in mathematical terms but not in physical assessment. I hope my explanation is clear. Thanks, Malati, for stirring of the nest again. But really I don't see why we bees should be agitated about any of this. We are all merely pursuing or trying to pursue the truth. It is interesting that you should bring up this business about quantum physics and the indeterminism on the subatomic level. I am just reading an interesting chapter in Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves in which he talks about Libertarians pinning their hopes on that to prove the existence of free will. It is really an interesting but difficult book, but he argues there that free will is compatible with a determined world. I will keep you posted on some of the problems with arguing from indeterminacy on a subatomic level to free will. Also of interest is your reference to the dual nature of light. Isn't it also true of all matter? That it is both particle and wave? This has been much on my mind lately. I have done some reading in science too. The reason this is on my mind is that I am starting to suspect that the old worldview(s) which is represented in most of the religious texts in the world is wrong and that there is no distinction between matter and spirit. Matter and spirit are two sides of the same coin or same energy. As you put it when viewed in one way we have what we have been calling matter. When viewed in another we have spirit. The old way of looking at things was okay, a good system based on what evidence was available to the ancestors, but is nowadays untenable. The old texts need to be reinterpreted suitably, but the underlying theory rejected. Krsna is still the saktiman and possesses sakti but the sakti is not dual. This is the line my thinking has gone down more recently in trying to discover a saner foundation for Vaisnavism. What think ye? |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 18, 2009 7:48:37 GMT -6
Nitaidas - would be interested in meeting for discussions too if you have the time during your stay in London. Sure, Jagannathji. I'd happy be to get together for a chat. Just email me and we will fix up a time. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 18, 2009 7:51:23 GMT -6
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? I just spotted this quote posted by a friend: "Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known." - Blaise Pascal. It certainly sounds nice. But is it true? How does one love someone one does not know? And wasn't Pascal the one came up with that silly wager? Dawkins does a nice job of dismantling that piece of chicanery. |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 18, 2009 7:59:35 GMT -6
The more the physicists know about quantum physics the more we know that your statement is not exactly right. Leaving classical physics, the physical reality has taken on a whole new dimension with quantum physics. The actual fact is that not even physicists fully understand quantum physics. This has opened the door for numerous Deepak Chopra-types who regularly invoke "quantum physics" as the 'scientific' basis for all types of wishy-washy phenomena. When physicists make some headway in understanding quantum physics, I am sure another gap will be closed and the faith-heads will have to find something else to prop up their beliefs. It's happened many times before, it will certainly happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 18, 2009 8:59:49 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. Well put, zvs! You have really captured the core of the problem and I thank you for doing it so well. Often times part of the problem we face with thinking about these issues is that they are not clearly present to our minds and you have helped us by stating it so well. I am not sure I have an answer at present that will be satisfying to you or to me or to anyone who asks this question. That is what is so good about a forum like this where we can ask these questions and try to discover ways of answering them. This particular issue has been on my mind for years and some ideas have occurred to me over those years, but nothing that I can call or present as an answer yet. Maybe we should start by asking more manageable questions that may lead us in the direction of an answer for the big question. Let's start with the scriptures. If it turns out that the scriptures are wrong on certain counts does that mean that they are wrong on all counts? Or, does there yet persist in them some truth that is not dependent on whether they are literally true? For instance, I love the Bhagavata. Every time I pick it up and read it I feel a kind of joy. I consider it a brilliant work, beautiful and majestic and wise and all of those wonderful things yet I don't for a minute think that it was written by Vyasa 5000 years ago. Instead I will admit that whoever wrote it, probably several people, was certainly a brilliant writer and great visionary. Reading the Bhagavata is really a great source of pleasure for me. It speaks to me on some level that I don't fully understand yet. At present, the truth that I find in the Bhagavata comes mainly in the form of my experience of pleasure or rasa if you will when I read it. The descriptions of the world in Skandha 5 have another maybe more important purpose than presenting any kind of cosmological account of the world. I see it as setting the stage for the lila of Krsna in the 10th Skandha. It is like describing the great theatre in which a great play will be performed. The majesty and hugeness of the description is meant to contribute to the majesty and wonder of the event to be unfolded later in the 10th Skandha. Thus, the truth for me comes through in the form of dramatic or theatrical truth. Perhaps this is because I have studied rasa more carefully than many and see it as having a value above and beyond the field of the factual. The book, I think, was written to create a powerful emotional experience in its readers and we see in the history of the transmission of the text that that actually has been its effect. Not only that, but it has been the inspiration of a whole body of literature that continues even up to today. This kind of truth is not dependent on whether Krsna and Radha actually lived on earth or not. He lives in our imaginations and feelings and that is in itself a powerful enough truth. What happens after death still remains a mystery and the ontological questions are still unanswered, but that may be good. Ontologies change with time as our has with ascendancy of science. |
|
|
|
Post by maasikdharma on Sept 18, 2009 9:14:20 GMT -6
You've admitted that science, as an objectively provable field, must be taken as truth.
The bottom line in both quantam physics and meta-physics (bhakti) is that there is no objective reality. We create our own subjective realities within ourselves. The possibilities are as limitless as we are.
Braj is a state of mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 18, 2009 9:26:38 GMT -6
I thought I might give a general report on my activities at the British Library in London. I finally managed to get over there yesterday and started my search for some of the Vaisnava texts that I have been hunting. I spoke to the North Indian Language Curator and it turns out that there is indeed a large set of records on blue slips that have not been entered into the catalog. It may be that the books I have been looking for are listed among those. I will have access to those files on my future visits and I am quite pleased with the prospects.
Without even consulting any of those records I have already found some very interesting texts. There are several copies of the plays of Krsnakamal Gosvami (Divyonmada, Svapna-vilasa, and another). I did not request the book, but will the next time I am there. There is then the question of what to do with it. The British Library charges way too much for copying and they also don't permit complete copies to be made of anything. That means, i guess, I will have to sit there a key them in or simply translate them in situ.
I essentially went through all the printed catalogues of old Bengali books and found lots of interesting things. Too many to list. Lots of Radha and Krsna plays. especially by someone named Bholanath Bhattacharya (or was it Mukherjee). I think he is the same fellow who produced an old edition of the 10th Skandha of the Bhagavata that I have at home, two volumes with the comms of Sridhara, Sri Jiva, Sri Sanatana, and Sri Visvanatha. Much more than this I do not know about him. But in addition, there were literally hundreds of other text relating to CV that need exploring. It is going to be an interesting stay, indeed. And this is without even glancing at those mysterious blue slips.
Cheers (as they say in my current neighborhood)
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 18, 2009 9:40:36 GMT -6
You've admitted that science, as an objectively provable field, must be taken as truth. The bottom line in both quantam physics and meta-physics (bhakti) is that there is no objective reality. We create our own subjective realities within ourselves. The possibilities are as limitless as we are. Braj is a state of mind. As my last posting suggests we seem to agree on your final statement (Braja is a state of mind), but I don't think of science as the truth. I think of science as a means of finding the truth. So it is the findings of science that are the truth or at least approximations of the truth, since they may at some future date and on the basis of some stronger evidence be altered or rejected. When you say that "we create our own subjective realities inside ourselves" I must ask what creates us? |
|
|
|
Post by maasikdharma on Sept 18, 2009 10:27:06 GMT -6
When you say that "we create our own subjective realities inside ourselves" I must ask what creates us?We are all little micro-mano-bhavas (kamadevas and kamadevis) born from the mind of Adi Kamadeva/devi  Sringar rasa is adi-rasa. Kama (Prem) is all that is. Prem is vastu. Vastu is prem.
|
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Sept 18, 2009 13:44:42 GMT -6
Sorry to but in off theme here, but is the word 'sraddha' wrongly translated as 'faith'? which usually implies an imposed belief system. It seems that the implication of sraddha is more on the lines of keen interest or regard. And it is that which develops by degrees into rati or a fond admiration, obsession or addiction, bhava or ecstatic emotions and finaly prema. And by relishing the narratives of Hari's lila the hearer and reciter actually visualise with their mind's eye the beauty, attributes etc., as depicted in the Bhagavat and such literatures. Therefore, they do get aquainted with Hari and his associates in the mind, and can feel drawn to the character and deeds of Hari.
Who cares what's down a telescope! or as Pope says;
Why has man not a microscopic eye?
Because a man is not a fly..
something like that.
|
|
