Comments Posted By kanakabja
Displaying 1 To 7 Of 7 Comments
During his presence, Srila Prabhupada many times said some things and then changed his mind about it. He developed many things by trial and error. For example, imagine if he didn’t change his mind on arranged marriages in ISKCON that he introduced at the first place? Maybe we would now be having a discussion on whether we are heretics for not letting our TP or guru chose our spouse, though we have clearly seen it didn’t work. Yes, arranged marriages are an ideal vedic principle, but they obviously didn’t produce expected results, and that’s why SP abandoned him. In the same way he introduced things that were contrary to what his guru was doing - like having boys and girls living in ashrams together.
However, this is a different discussion all together which I don’t wish to start over here.
So back to the moon landing, I agree that they didn’t go to the moon in a same way that I never went to Vrindavan that Krishna Book describes. Moon is a planet full of vegetation and water, which is quite opposite from what we see. In the same way, Vrindavan that I go and visit is void of beautiful kunjas and lakes, forests and Krishna’s pastimes. None of the places can’t be accessed by physical travel, without spiritual qualification.
What were Srila Prabhupada’s arguments? Non-qualification, moon description not matching the scriptural one. It’s perfectly supported by what I presented? Where I’m I contradicting Srila Prabhupada?
On blind faith - I’m not challenging bhakti yoga process - all I’m saying is that so many devotees are BLINDLY (yes, blindly) accepting NON-DEVOTEE moon landing hoax arguments, without even having ability to verify them. Varnadi prabhu took his time too look into them, and he presented his findings.
For number of years I used to run and organise a university preaching programmes in London. One of my great preaching tools (so i thought) was a book by Dr Matsaru Emoto - Messages from water. (google it). It seemed to scientifically support many of our scriptural conclusions. Then, I got challenged, embarrassed and fully discredited. So called doctor was a total fraud, and his book a pile of rubbish. I made a mistake of not verifying the info i was presenting, and thus almost ruined all of my preaching efforts. I’m not doing the same mistake again.
Anyone replying to this, pls separate SP’s arguments from moon hoaxers claims. Lets address them separately. Thanks.
Comment Posted By kanakabja On 28.07.2009 @ 22:54
Srimad Bhagavatam hardly touches the vedic science of Astrology in the 5th canto with the sole purpose of helping us to relate it to Krishna. Sukadev Goswami had no time nor interest to teach King Parikshit astronomy. From that point of view, Srimad Bhagavatam is not astronomical nor astrological scripture, it is 100% fully focused on bhakti.
I’m not saying that SB statements are wrong, I’m saying that perhaps we need to see them in a different way, just like I presented the multidimensional idea, which accommodates both SB and moon landing.
In Sanskrit, there is a huge difference between graha and loka. Loka is clearly a planet, and Graha, by definition, is anything which has the power to seize, grasp or influence. This is why ’statues’ that we worship are called vigraha’s - the statues that can become deity when properly installed. The moment of transformation from statue into deity is an installation ceremony - statue now become vigraha. Rahu (or Ketu) are never referred to as lokas, but grahas. And Vedic astrology shastra explains that though they don’t have mass (or physical body to qualify as lokas or planets), though their are mathematically calculated energy points in the sky, they are grahas and they play a very important role in the cosmic code of divination - astrology. They have a great influence, which no one is questioning. Now, this is not my concoction as some think, this is rather Vedic scriptures view on Rahu.
That is why you can’t land on Rahu - there is nothing for you to land on, just as you can’t punch a ghost though it exists and has influence.
The point I’m accused of here is questioning Srila Prabhupada and his authority.
To make that clear - I fully accept Srila Prabhupada’s authority on the spiritual science of Krishna Consciousness. I never questioned that nor ever will. Knowing Varnadi prabhu, I’m sure he doesn’t either.
And this discussion is not really about Krishna Consciousness, it is rather about such a silly thing as landing on Moon planet. Lol!
Srila Prabhupada never claimed to be an authority on astrology nor similar ‘material’ or worldly aspects of the Vedas. Are we really offenders for not accepting him as such?
Comment Posted By kanakabja On 28.07.2009 @ 22:07
Now, are we really offensive to go ‘against’ SP on the Moon issue? When we look at everything SP said, he left the room for his ‘mistake’, and ultimately said that is doesn’t matter if they went to the moon or not.
The description of the Moon in the vedas and what we see is quite different. However, that can be explained by multiple dimensions theory, which would quite nicely accommodate our belief and the moon landing. After all, there are so many descriptions of heavenly areas in the Himalayas (which we clearly don’t see), or even the Dham’s them selves. Imagine your friend returned from Vrindavan and described what he has seen (dirt, ruins, thieves etc), and you tell him that he is a cheater, for that doesn’t match what you read in Krishna Book? Well, sure, he hasn’t been to THAT real Vrindavan, just as our astronauts haven’t been to THAT Moon we read about in SB, thought the physical location was definitely the same.
One more thing, on Rahu. According to our scriptures, Rahu is actually not a planet. Sanskirt term used is graha, which doesn’t mean physical planet, it means a heavenly body that can embody particular meaning. There are many planets, but not all are Grahas (like Pluto or Neptune), and some Grahas are not planets, like rahu and ketu. Astronomically, Ketu and Rahu denote the points of intersection of the paths of the Sun and the Moon as they move on the celestial sphere. They are called ’shadow’ planets, and they don’t have physical body, so you can’t land on them, just as you can’t punch ghosts, though they exists and have power of influence. Now, Srila Prabhupada was not an astrologer, and therefore I don’t think it’s offensive to put aside the rahu landing comment.
In conclusion, if we are a bit more introspective and HUMBLE, we can find the balance between the both views.
Thank you Varnadi prabhu for your brave and very insightful comments.
Your servant, Kanakabja das
Comment Posted By kanakabja On 26.07.2009 @ 23:34
To me this discussion seems like an argument between blind faith and scientific approach.
One party assumes that Srila Prabhupada and Vedic scriptures advocate pure blind faith, and despises scientific approach. I seriously question the validity of that. SP called Krishna Consciousness a science - meaning that our spiritual efforts were producing directly perceivable results. ‘pratyaksha avagamam dharmyam’. Interestingly enough, when you examine which scientific claims SP challenged and criticized, you end up with mere theories like big bang, evolution, origin of life etc - which don’t follow the before mentioned definition of what is scientific. Those theories have never been proven and are just theories. I can’t recall SP challenging other scientific achievements.
However, we so quickly jump and declare the science to be bogus and demoniac, and totally useless. How silly do we sound? And then we wonder why our preaching has got no effect? Oh, sorry, forgot, it’s Kali yuga, nothing to do with out preaching message, right?
On the other hand, Varnadi prabhu is carefully examining the scientific proposition and the scriptural alternative. Many devotees have been quoting Srimad Bhagavatam 5th Canto, while not really understanding it. Many of our scientifically educated devotees (starting with late Sadaputa Prabhu) have been strongly hinting that the 5th Canto should not be taken literary and were trying to find the key to the shastric descriptions of the universe.
Varnadi prabhu is not just blindly jumping on the moon hoax bandwagon, he took his time to carefully research the claims by both parties. By looking at the evidence provided, he came to conclusion that Moon landing was much more probable than Moon hoax.
My question here is: how many of you who oppose him took the same effort? Did you actually look into all these claims and arguments? If you didn’t, then maybe you should, and if you still maintain your belief based on the moon hoax arguments, then present why. That would then become a cultured discussion.
For me personally, only one hoax argument remained strong - the lack of crater under Apollo. For EVERYTHING else there is a very simple explanation (if you are ready to hear, of course). Even after reading the info on Varnadi’s website, it’s hard to say. However, the reason for it is that the info presented is beyond my power of comprehension. He could have wrote anything in that way, and I would not be able to really assess it.
Comment Posted By kanakabja On 26.07.2009 @ 23:04
Dear mother Laksmi
Thank you for your clarification.
I fully agree with you - yes, there is a lot of violence attached to milk consumption today.
My point is that i believe that we as Vaishnavas need to learn how to think for ourselves and apply the principle of compassion in different life situations we find ourselves in. That might be silk or leather wearing, drinking of milk or anything else that is causing unnecessary harm and pain to other living beings. My emphasis here would be on the word UNNECESSARY. If we can avoid it, then why not? Just because Srila Prabhupada didn’t mention it anywhere? We really need to learn how to apply that compassion principle in our lives, according to time, place and circumstance.
Comment Posted By kanakabja On 16.08.2009 @ 22:56
Dear mother Lakshmi
The ‘idea of discussing how many devotees wear leather’ is not about judging devotees.
It is about raising awareness of what we are daily doing without even thinking about.
It is about compassion.
Then is up to devotees to make up their own minds.
There is plenty of alternative to leather shoes in most of western countries. When there is alternative, why then take part in cow slaughter?
It’s a rather simple point.
You are right, the leather CAN come from dead animals, but does it? Most likely not, we both know that.
I’m just surprised that as a general policy in ISKCON we don’t care.
We buy leather shoes, leather sofas, leather seat cars - and at the same time trying to practice path of ultimate compassion and love.
Doesn’t quite add up, does it?
One thing confuses me in your comment.
Are you saying that milking animals for human use is more cruel than killing them for leather?
Comment Posted By kanakabja On 08.08.2009 @ 17:36
This is a great idea.
However, don’t you think that stopping to wear leather should be the step one?
I find it appaling to see how many devotees wear leather without any regret, from the top management and sanyasis down to everyone else.
Most of that leather we wear on our feet is cow leather, and for your information, India is one of biggest exporter of cow leather in the world.
On the top of that, consider that hundreds and hudreds of cows from Vrindavan are taken to Delhi slaughter houses - for leather.
So think, you are wearing Krishna’s dead friends on your feet, and there are very good chances that it could be even Vrindavan cow that had pay with its life for it. It might be that very cow or calf you were playing with and feeding it bananas when you last time visited Braj.
What is an alternative?
There is plenty. It just takes a little effort, and you will easily find leather-free shoes.
Its great to practice ahimsa toward silk worms, but lets start with cows, shall we?
Comment Posted By kanakabja On 07.03.2009 @ 10:39