Harimedia Forum

When I read here, around, I find that a lot of thoose comments here, I get a feeling That Srila Prabhupadas recommendations normal is wrong or had to adjusted and modified.Well ok.We are where we are at,But still if I want to play good golf I have to learn to accomplich what is need to be able to do that.SImilary isnt it a certain way of learning to deal with and recognice one anarthas instead of just claiming THat this is the way I am.,and you just take it or leave it.

BUT IS THIS THE actually the true eternal Self we are speaking about after all.???SO ok we feel we are not able to go ahead and thus nobodie can force somebodie else since not even the Lord force somebodie since HE has given all of us free will inorder to open a possible door of loving realationship with each one of us.

But With our filosoficl learning we should atleast be able to recognice there is a behavior typical for been controlled by the ahankara and similary certain type of feelings and thought pattern.Is it after all that What our Kind Lord allways trying to expoose us to after all thrue all our lifes experiences and social intercourses??This is Some thoughts I have .To just express what I feel and claim Thats proudly the way I am Is of course Very good from some position because we have to start where we are And its also good for ourselfes to be expoosed to others NORMAL always critical opinion.Its Kali Yuga after all so what else to be expected?.But to think all my thoughts are very important would be wrong conclusion Since after all our intelligence can also be under the controll ofother representativs than Pure sources of Guidences.Just a thought or??

dasosmin wrote:When I read here, around, I find that a lot of thoose comments here, I get a feeling That Srila Prabhupadas recommendations normal is wrong or had to adjusted and modified.Well ok.We are where we are at,But still if I want to play good golf I have to learn to accomplich what is need to be able to do that.SImilary isnt it a certain way of learning to deal with and recognice one anarthas instead of just claiming THat this is the way I am.,and you just take it or leave it.

BUT IS THIS THE actually the true eternal Self we are speaking about after all.???SO ok we feel we are not able to go ahead and thus nobodie can force somebodie else since not even the Lord force somebodie since HE has given all of us free will inorder to open a possible door of loving realationship with each one of us.

Haribol S. D, I checked today my emails and found that you were sending me two comments where you were explaining a little bit more your point of view on this issue. For me nothing new, would I say, we all know more or less what Prabhupadas understanding was or at least what I understood it to be. My point of view to all this I would like to let you know, by writing here some quotes I came upon since some time, from other personalities.

"What is wise? He that learns from everyone" ~ Benjamin Franklin

"We are not human beings trying to be spiritual. We are spiritual beings trying to be human" ~ Jacquelyn Sural

"People are not separated. They are individuated" ~ Barbara Ann-Brennan

"Your present circumstances don´t determine where you can go; they merely determine where you start" ~ Nido Qubein

"Life is not the way it´s supposed to be. It´s the way it is. The way you deal with it is what makes the difference" ~ Virginia Satir

"No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a piece of the continent" ~ John Donne

"The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth"~ Pierre Abeland

"We don´t receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us" ~ Marcel Proust

"Wisdom is nothing but a preparation of the soul, a capacity, a secret art of thinking, feeling and breathing thoughts of unity at every moment of life"
~ Hermann Hesse

"As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomik age - as in being able to remake ourselves"
~ Gandhi

"Though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending" ~ Carl Brand

"At the center of your being you have the answer. You know who you are and you know what you want. Search your heart and see, the way to do is to be"
~ Lao Tse

"Who we are never changes. Who we think we are does" ~ Mary Almanac

"The easiest thing in the world to be is you. The most difficult thing to be is what other people want you to be. Don´t let them put you in that position"
~ Leo Buscaglia

"The deepest expression of spirituality is love" ~ Robert L. Simpson

"To live happy is an inword power of the soul" ~ Aristotle

"The greatest healing therapy is friendship and love" ~ Hubert Humphrey

And I would like to add to this. "Replenish life. Add kindness."

Like Sigmund Freud said ones: "When we share - that is poetry in the prose of life" or "To share a laugh is to share a ´spiritual moment"

Now why do I type all this I dont know myself sometimes so clearly, I guess I like the nice association of all of you out there, and would like to communicate to you my opinion and my vision in regard to all of this.

"Life is Really very Simple. What we give out, we get back." ~ Louise L. Hay

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithfull servant. We have created a society that honors the "servant" and has forgotten the "gift."
~ Albert Einstein

It´s time to change our attitude, would I say, or?

With the best wishes,
Harsi

The Vedic age is gone, and no one can bring it back. We also don't know very much about it. There is evidence that everything was not so wonderful as we would like to see it. There is a kind of romantisizing of it going on. Time is progressing and circumstances are changing.

Still, we can benefit from the philosophical conclusions made by those before us. They wrote what they did in light of their culture and their time, but the thinking we can still extract and apply to our own time and culture. Those persons wrote their conclusions in light of the spiritual realisations they had, and we can get our own spiritual realisations, compare it with theirs, and write it down in modern form applicable to the time and circumstances today.

Wonderfully explained indeed. I would also say that there must exist a kind of universally understandable knowledge about our existence and that of the Supreme divine being or God, which one should try to find out and live ones life acording to it inthe circumstances and necesities of today. You rightly said the Vedic age is gone.
Moore about its history is to be found on this homepages.
http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch61 ... story.html - http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/CONTENTS.HTM http://www.members.aol.com/Donnclass/Indialife.html - http://www.san.beck.org/EC7-Vedas.html
http://www.members.tripod.com/~ramkumaram/article2.html - http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley ... _invasion/
and elsewhere on the world wide web.

An interesting insight in this matter gives also the article from http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... pic=987&s= "Western Indologists: A Study in Motives," where its author writes:
"Considering the above mentioned points, it is safe to say at this time that the migration and the homes of the Vedic people, or where and when the Vedas originally appeared, can not be proved archaeologically.

Furthermore, let us not forget that it was the British Sanskritists and educators in India, during the 1700 and 1800's, who first portrayed Vedic literature and culture as something barbaric, inferior and recent. They formed estimated dates on when different Vedic books were written according to such things as the contents of the books and style of writing. But it should be pointed out that even the Vedic tradition describes that once the Vedic knowledge had been divided and the different volumes were written, they were handed down to sages who became expert in the content of that portion of the Vedic knowledge who then continued to hand it down to others who formed sub branches of it.

Thus it may look like the Vedas gradually evolved as if they had been influenced and changed by many authors over a long period of time, but actually that is not necessarily the case. We also have to remember that for many years the Vedic literature was written on palm leaves and would have to be copied when they wrote out or when other copies were wanted.

Down through the years as other copies were repeatedly made, certain conventional modifications of the script would have taken place making some scholars think their origin was more recent. But in the case of the Bhagavat Puranas, the Sanskrit text still contained the archaic form of writing, verifying its antiquity. Nonetheless, the English scholars said the author of the Purana must have purposely used the archaic script to make people think it was older than it was.

Why the English proposed this sort of theory in an attempt to disqualify its ancient origins simply shows how biased they were against the Vedic literature."

harsi wrote: Down through the years as other copies were repeatedly made, certain conventional modifications of the script would have taken place making some scholars think their origin was more recent. But in the case of the Bhagavat Puranas, the Sanskrit text still contained the archaic form of writing, verifying its antiquity. Nonetheless, the English scholars said the author of the Purana must have purposely used the archaic script to make people think it was older than it was.

We can also ask why something more ancient should be better than something more recent. For example, the Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy has been improved (or reveiled) through time. If we go back 2000 years, the philosophy cannot be found in its current shape. Some might claim that the philosophy was as its peak 500 years ago, and since then it just have degraded, and thus we should only depend on 500 year old sources. But actually, what we find, is that certain persons in the tradition has enhanced the philosophy, or reveiled more of it, through time. That includes persons like Bhaktivinode Thakur and Prabhupada. Is that the end of the philosophy, or should we allow it to evolve further? Some might not like the way that branch of the philosophy have taken, and want to go back a little bit. But still, why should the most ancient source be the most "truthful"?

As I see it, we can take the tools that we got from our predecessors, and use them to whatever we want. We don't need to become carbon copies of them, or even follow them strictly. It is up to ourselves to succeed or fail, as we wish. Prabhupada certainly did his experiments, to adapt the "Vedic" to his time, and as I see it, some of it did not turn out so good in the long run. So if we continue in the same mood, we continue experimenting. One person will succeed and form the basis for the next step in the tradition. Who know now who it will be? Maybe the most bold person? Or maybe the most traditional? Only future history can tell. By looking at past, and that includes the "vedic" scriptures, we can get some idea of what has succeeded and failed in the past, and try to repeat the successes and avoid the failures. But to bring back something that was? I think no. we can't even bring back Prabhupada's "success" 50 years ago, since it depended on the hippie age, which is long gone.

Even if some "vedic" scriptures are more "recent", that does not make them of less value. Since if we examine the same reality now and 2000 years ago, it will be slightly different descriptions, but since we describe the same thing, both descriptions can hold the same truth. And isn't that the whole purpose of reveiled scriptures?

Westerners somehow think that the Indian philosophy is made up by cheaters, is "fiction" or something. But what they see inside the atom, or up in the sky, which only persons of the same priesthood can confirm, is the truth. The scientists really believe what they see is true, and likewise those who write spiritual literature also believe what they see is true. Maybe that says something about the same reality that both groups are part of.