By Matsyavatara Dasa
In the great myths of Bhakti-vedantic and biblical tradition, as in many other millenary civilizations, even before the creation of the human being, the divine mind manifests special beings who immediately play different roles in the good and in the evil.
The biblical tradition tells about angels and demons existing before the world, before the creation of man. These two sets of archetypes (the archetype of light represented by the angels headed by Michael, and the archetype of darkness represented by the demons headed by Lucifer) come in direct conflict and immediately engage in a cosmic war between the forces of good and the forces of evil. The Bible explains that Lucifer (literally his name means “the bearer of light”) was originally created by God as the most glorious of angels: he was a protecting cherub and God awarded him with goods and beauty. But Lucifer proudly aspired to become similar to God, and the pride and corruption of his heart led him to his fall as Satan, a Hebrew term meaning “the opponent”.
Once humans are created, the furious battles between the titanic forces which represent the good and the titanic forces which represent the evil, is already running. As the myth reports, these two different energetic fields have their cosmic value and have always been present in the human psyche. Let’s translate in modern psychological terms the ancient language of myth and its symbols: angels are the luminous archetypes of the good and demons the dark archetypes of the evil, but both represent functions of the personality.
Also the great Vedic myth portray the fight between good and evil as occurring between two categories of beings which manifest in the cosmic mind: the devas, celestial beings led by Indra, and the asuras, dimmed beings headed by Vrtra. Very similarly to the biblical myth, also these two different categories of beings represent the archetypes of the good and the archetypes of the evil respectively in ethic-moral terms or, in psychological language, the evolved or unevolved functions of the personality.
The great myths we made reference to, describing the origin of the cosmos and of life with images and metaphors, explain that man was created on some sort of battlefield, where good and evil are raging. Man is called to choose between good and evil from the very beginning.
Man seems to be in an extremely difficult condition: he has limited power to face and fight against forces which appear unlimited. In fairy tales this concept is portrayed with the image of the child against the ogre: a depiction of the powers which tower above man, like a twig in a hurricane.
In Bhagavad-gita, Krishna explains to his friend disciple Arjuna the nature and the characteristics of the mind, governed by universal psychic laws, and exhorts him to learn to manage and dominate his mental contents. After listening to Krishna’s words, Arjuna looks confused, bewildered, and declares himself unable to control the mind: “The mind is flickering, turbulent, obstinate and very strong; I think that subduing the mind is more difficult than controlling the wind” (VI.34).
What does it mean, subduing the mind? It means discovering and learning to manage one’s unconscious dimension. In the West, Sigmund Freud was the first to elaborately theorize on the complex concept of the unconscious, in the 19th century, whereas in the East this psychic dimension had been known for millennia to sages and scientists of the Vedic, Upanishadic and Pauranic cultural world. In their description, the unconscious comprises thought objects and psychic charges, in Sanskrit termed samskaras, which remain unknown and inaccessible to other ones of the same nature, at times forming complexes or causing other personality disorders. We are all influenced and badly conditioned by our conscious, that unexpected and unwanted guest who acts as the master in our own house.
From the unconscious rise impulses, energetic drives that the individual didn’t even know he had, and which often clash with the plans, desires and perspectives of the conscious self. The subject finds himself torn from within by this intra-psychic conflict, not produced by external agents but by sordid forces, which rage under the level of consciousness. Sometimes, the emergence of unconscious contents in the shape of impulses can have an overwhelming effect over one’s willpower and the lifestyle that the conscious self had deliberately chosen.
Albeit by a different language, the masters of Indovedic tradition agree with great Western psychologists in explaining that man has to deal with formidable forces which roam about its psyche, and he has to fight them in a long series of battles, not seldom throughout his whole life. A life of struggle, but not against an external enemy: the enemy is within.
As Krishna well explains in Bhagavad-gita (VI.6), he who fails in educating his psyche has lost the battle and the mind becomes his most terrible enemy, a ruthless tyrant, the great condemning inquisitor, the jailor who inflicts pain until one is bleeding. But to he who has succeeded in dominating the psyche, it becomes his best friend, an instrument for liberation, through which one can experience bliss in this world. Between subduing the mind and being subdued by the mind, there lies the same difference separating heaven from hell, in psychological terms well-being from malaise, happiness from pain. There is no need to wonder now whether hell exists as a physical place; for sure, there exists a hellish state of mind, by which the person seems to have lost all hopes and is slave to a depressive state, chronic bad moods, caused by a lack of vision and planning. In these conditions, the subject can’t see and does not even seek out solutions, he just attributes all evils to external causes, without having the dignity or the strength to understand his mistakes and stand responsible for them. The dark archetypes dominate his personality, chain it and oblige it to rotate around the orbit of the ego, as in a sort of obsession without exit.
In the biblical myth, the prince of the angels, the most beautiful and luminous angel, decides to betray God. This is the beginning of the combat between the luminous and the dark archetypes, between good and evil, because one group of angels decides to support Lucifer while another choose to continue the maintenance of order, the source of their strength, joy and beauty. In the myth, the archetype of faithfulness wins over the archetype of betrayal: in the Vedas Indra defeats Vrtra, and in the Bible Michael defeats Lucifer.
In the Vedic and Pauranic cosmogonical perspective, the dimmed beings, asuras, are always depicted engaged in planning to conquest and dominate the universe, just like in Christian theology Lucifer or Mephistopheles keeps on hatching plots and setting traps to assert his power. In both traditions, the archetypes of the good bring order and justice, represent enlightening forces which give high inspiration and allow to see beyond mere sensory perception, overcoming the ego conditionings. Alone, man cannot succeed in this endeavor, he cannot compete against the appalling evil forces, against the powerful dark archetypes, yet he possesses the strength to transcend the conditionings implied in his “humanity”, by connecting to a higher source of love, life and knowledge, which is his very origin. All great spiritual traditions describe man in the image and likeness of God, not for his external appearance, but in his essential divine nature, which is an emanation and a part of God Himself.
Bhagavad-gita (XV.7) explains that originally living beings are eternal manifestation of God, infinitesimal expansions of his infinite potency. In the incarnate condition, they nonetheless live as if encapsulated and trapped inside a psychophysical structure which limits and heavily conditions them, once the living beings (jivas) identify with it. Due to this identification, the subject progressively loses awareness of his divine essence and entailed powers. This awareness can be recovered, reawakened, so that in man the forces of the good can once again predominate on the forces of evil, and the higher functions of the personality can defeat and disrupt the negative ones, regaining and properly redirecting their energetic charges.
For More information:
http://www.c-s-b.org/en/
I am not sure if devotees have a common acceptance of who the Vedic version of Satan is. If he is a fallen angel then he must be a relegated demigod turned demoniac. But then, there is no record of an eternal adversary of Krishna who controls matters as depicted in the Bible. All enemies of the Lord usually meet with death, or are demoted to abominable species of life.
Some devotees liken Satan to Lord Siva thanks to the trident. Although Sri Bhutanatha is compassionate to infernal dwellers and similar allies, it does not mean that he condones their behaviour or inclinations. To label Lord Siva this way is offensive because he is not an adversary of Krishna.
The comparison of Vrtasura is interesting in so far as the overall pastimes play out. But this took place at a certain time and is recorded for our benefit since he was a pure devotee. So whether a demigod or pure devotee assumes a demoniac identity due to commiting an offence, the parallel with an eternal almost all-powerful Satan, are not entirely accurate for all time. Rather, many big demons come and go, but Satan remains, as the myth goes.
In view of this, some Puranas mention that there are many species of troublesome subtle forms of life, who prey on the temptations of human beings. Are they all controlled and coordinated by a Satan-like figure? If not, then they live as forced by the ignorance mode they have acquired. We cannot say that Lord Siva prompts these beings to do evil things.
Perhaps the honour should go to the one who wants Kali-yuga to live up to his namesake, Kali himself. Though Lord Siva masters our ahankara or false identification with our body, the allurements presented by Kali at every turn in life should make him a likely comparison with Satan. Even so, his age is also a temporary cyclic appearance.
So the inner conflicts that rage within humans on the egoistic level, and which remain with us for the duration of our anadi stay here, seems to have assumed a personality like Satan. The problem is, as with many professed religious people who get tempted into sin, it is very easy to say; “Well, Satan made me do it”.
Ys, Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Pranams,
While i may derive many similarities between two textsBible and gita), i consider vedas/Gita to be authentic and bonafied.
I have no knowledge about bible. But i am sure that as per vedanta sutra, the Vedas/upanishads/puranas/itihasas are considered the ONLY source of knowledge.
Sastra YonitvAt.
Does bible talk about
1.creation in detail?Like cause and effect theories in Vedanta
2.What is their concept of liberation?
what are the fundamental doctrines of Christianity about matter, souls, and God ?
Do they discuss in length about these doctrines as in Bhagavad Gita?
It is commonly seen that morality,mercy,cleanliness , Concept of Higher Power are natural to any human mind. To have come across such basic principles of life and finding them in line with Veda(apourusheya-No author) ,need not qualify those(and other) teachings as source of right Spiritual knowledge.
Here is a quote from discussions i found on this topic
” The belief that real Christianity is actually something
different and more devotional is not rooted in fact but rather in
wishful thinking.”
Please advice.
Dasan
PS: While i may not have the basic principles written in Bible followed, i feel we must better realise the authenticity and the divinity of Vedic school of thought.May be commentary by acharyas on thrid sutra of Brahma sutra bhasya will explain more.
Text and commentary from Tattva-viveka by Bhaktivinoda as follows:
Text 1.25
adi-jivaparadhadvai sarvesam bandhanam dhruvam
tathanya-jiva-bhutasya vibhor dandena niskrtih
Some say that due to the sin committed by the first living entity,
all other living entities are therefore trapped in the material
world. Thus God accepts punishment in order to deliver the living
entities.Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable
http://www.krishnamedia.org/e-books/Tattva-Viveka.pdf
But i suppose all these analogies or comparisons are to help preach to christians in true essence by giving their own examples or stories.It is glorious in that way.
I got a bit carried away thinking if we are to understand that christianity is the way to Krishna bhakti.
If we are preaching to even give up few authentic and prescribed vedic practices (like devata workship etc),we obviously will be more strict in considering religions which has no base on vedic scriptures.
namaste gaura-vani-sri-murtaye dina-tarine
rupanuga-viruddhapasiddhanta-dhvanta-harine
“I offer my respectful obeisances unto you Srila Bhakti Siddanta Saraswati Thakur, who are the personified teachings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. You are the deliverer of the fallen souls. You do not tolerate any statement which is against the siddhanta enunciated by Srila Rupa Goswami.”
Dasan
Some aspects of the Bible tally with Bhakti yoga on a basic level, while others like Adam eating a forbidden fruit that causes us humans to sin, are incompatible. If one enters a debate with a Christian, it is best to focus on points, which happen to be our strong points. Srila Prabhupada usually stuck to the “Thou shalt not kill” strategy and was quite inflexible, and rightly so. If the Christian saw the merit of this line of argument, then he would move on to the next point, depending on which way the discussion was going.
Unless a Christian is thoughtful, to quote Bhagavad-Gita or any Vedic scripture to stress our side of an argument will be problematic, because they generally do not accept any other word bar the Bible. To be familiar with appropriate Biblical verses will help us discuss on a logical level. But we have to be careful, otherwise the discussion will go back and forth, and move from one topic to another without any direction.
So it is best to stick with a particular topic like not killing animals. If there is a little piety and someone accepts that this could be true, then we proceed. There are a growing number of Christian organisations who propose vegetarianism as the way to salvation, and even they have to convince their non-vegetarian brethren on the strength of the Bible.
It is said that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur liked how the Salvation Army glorified God through brassy music. When Srila Prabhupada stayed at the Argawals house, he was impressed to see churches in the town.
One of the most divisive Biblical quotes is the one that says, “no one comes to the Father but through me (Jesus)”. This alone is responsible for the vehement rejection of all other religions. This quote is open to historical evaluation on the precise meaning as gleaned from the original Greek language. But time will tell if a scholarly breakthrough reveals the true intent of this quote.
Overall, we should just be friendly, and make them like us. If they like us, they will more likely hear from us.
Ys, Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Pranams Kesava Krsna prabhu
Thanks for the information and advice.I understand that To appreciate and admire is the way for universal brotherhood.
It is always a nice preaching lesson.
Dasan
The “Thou shall not kill” strategy may have been effective in the 70’s but now they usually say the proper translation is “Thou shall not murder.” I have argued in response that translating the word as murder would place God’s laws as subordinate to our legal definition of murder. They assume the “dominion” we are given over animals in Genesis means we can kill them for our purposes, so they find no problem with killing animals for food. The problem with that argument is that a king could kill his own subjects for his eating “pleasure” and not run afoul of God’s laws. Since he decides what is murder and has dominion over his subjects, they would be legitimate food for him. Of course that’s ridiculous. Still, the argument is a little compicated, which makes it not very effective.
Rather than relying on the “Thou shall not kill” commandment, I find Proverbs 6.16-17 to be much more definitive:
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
So the Bible says “the LORD hates… hands that shed innocent blood.” A Christian may argue (incorrectly of course) that an animal has no soul, but he cannot say that animals have no blood. All that remains is the question of innocence, and very few animals have done anything in their animal lives to warrant the death penalty.
Oddly enough, the statement that the Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood undermines the whole Christian theology, which has a supposedly omnipotent God being forced to do something He hates (having His only son slaughtered on a crucifix) for the sake of saving the believers. It’s a conflict between God’s omnipotence, His desire (the basis of hate), and His son’s innocence. An omnipotent God should be able to achieve His goals without having to depend on a method that He hates.
Maybe that’s why I never heard of these verses until I happened to find them myself.
Pranams.
I understand that when we quote based on authority,the preaching becomes more valid.
But with topics respect to basic Human principles,i sometimes think they are not much needed for a common man with a sane mind.
The pity is ,to simply stop the act of murder we have stretched it to call for knowledge of soul , krishna , rama, mohammad etc.Is it so hard to understand the scream and pain of a living being?
Earnestly, we do not kill ONLY since Krishna or veda says so and no other reason?
Would we have gone with a bloodshed if our holy books meant them?
I think humans beings have minimum basic understanding that they can dervive from nature.We cant expect spirituality to talk about very minute things.
Christopher hitchens(thought an ashiest), while expressing that it is extra ordinarily a bashful insult to say that one prohibits or abstains from murder , stealing , rapes etc with a belief that there is a divine punishment or a reward awaiting due to indulgence or preventing those acts ,jokingly pointed out that he is expected to believe his mom’s ancestors believed that murder, crime etc were ‘ok’ long ago until they went to Bethlehem walking on a pilgrimage and were baptized to Christianity and were told One fine morning these are forbidden ‘now’!They were shocked ! :)
So when the lesson is mercy and compassion, if we start to bring in spiritual awards or punishments then the true purpose is lost.We will continue to run by selfish motives.The root cause being lust or selfish enjoyment remains at the cost of my own pain or other’s pain.
Here is Bernard shaw’s words on this meat eating that i use for preaching sometimes:
We are living graves of murdered beasts
Slaughtered to satisfy our appetites.
We never pause to wonder at our feasts,
If animals like men could possibly have rights.
We pray on Sunday that we may have light,
To guide our footsteps on the paths we tread.
We are sick of war, we do not want to fight,
And we gorge ourselves upon the dead.
Like Carrion Crows we live and feed on meat,
Regardless of the suffering and pain
We cause by doing so, in this we treat,
Defenseless animals for sport or gain –
How can we hope in this world to attain
The peace we say we are so anxious for,
We pray for it o’er catacomb’s of slain,
To God while outraging the moral law,
Thus cruelty begets the offspring — WAR !
Dasan