Tattva-viveka
"Elementary" and "Ethnic" points
Forrest - November 24, 2004 4:35 am
sri sri guru-gaurangau jayatah!
Recently I started reading a book by Joseph Campbell entitled "The Inner Reaches of Outer Space." I have been highly influenced by Campbell. I used to watch his talks which where broadcasted by the local community college on public access. He was the first person I heard talk about Krishna which caught my attention. Shortly after that time I found Prabhupada's books. During my brief time in community college before I joined ISKCON I was greatly inspired by a comparative religions teacher that used Campbell's texts often. I have been always very inspired by his work. So, recently I decided to read the book I mentioned earlier to revisit his work.
Near the end of his prologue to this book he says:
"... A mythology is, in this sense, an organization of metaphorical figures connotative of states of mind that are not finally of this or that place and time, notwithstanding that the figures themselves initially suggest localization. My magnificent master and great friend of many years ago, Heinrich Zimmer (1890-1943), had a saying: "The best things can't be told: the second best are misunderstood." The second best are misunderstood because, as metaphors poetically of that which cannot be told, they are misread prosaically as referring to tangible facts. The connoted messages are thus lost in the symbols, the elementary ideas in local "ethnic" inflections..."
Later he says:
"... For some reason which I have not yet found anywhere explained, the popular, unenlightened practice of prosaic reification of metaphoric imagery has been the fundamental method of the most influential exegetes of the whole Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythic complex. The idea of the Virgin Birth, for example, is argued as a historical fact, whereas in practically every mythology of the world instances have appeared of this elementary idea. American Indian mythologies abound in virgin births. Therefore, the intended reference of the archetypal image cannot possibly have been to a supposed occurrence in the Near East in the first century BC. The elementary idea, likewise, of the Promised Land cannot originally have referred to a part of this earth to be conquered by military might, but to a place of spiritual peace in the heart, to be discovered through contemplation.
<cut>
In short, the social, as opposed to the mystical function of mythology, is not open to the mind, but to enclose it: to bind a local people together in mutual support of offering images that awaken the heart to recognitions of commonality, without allowing these to escape the monadic compound..."
For me these are very interesting points. He describes to different aspects to myth, the universal "elementary" ideas and the relative "ethnic" ideas. This reminds me of many points that I have heard you make in the past. His emphasis on the elementary points is what really attracted me to him when I was younger, and indeed does still now.
Then he goes a step further to assert that the images used in the myths are simply metaphorical and cannot be taken as literal. He uses examples of the institutionalization of various Christian mythical images and their ill effects to explain his view. I can see his point of how ethnic principles cannot be taken as absolute. It seems to me that he is emphasizing the need to see the essence of a mythology and its application in our heart. When we look at all of the major war zones of the world we almost always see the ill effects of the institutionalization, in other words an emphasis on the ethic, relative points rather than the elementary, essential points, of mythical images.
After reading the second paragraph in particular I was considering how our particular traditions view our mythical figures. It should be noted that Campbell's use of the word myth is simply referring to the world's spiritual/religious/scientific various explanations of reality. He does not mean to imply the negative connotation that is commonly connected with the word.
I can see many instances where our tradition understands its mythical figures. For example Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta would often translate the word purana to mean "history." But after a little thought it seems to me that our tradition sees myth in both ways, as literal and as metaphor. Bhaktivinoda Thakur's vision of the killing of demons in Krsna-lila as representing the various anarthas comes to mind.
It seems that the vision of Bhaktivinoda was de-emphasize our tradition's ethnic, relative points so that the elementary message could spread outside of India. It seems that to successfully transfer that essential message an ethnic covering for the tradition has to be developed that applies to the culture that the essential message is being presented to. I mean things like a reformation such understandings as how men and women interact and are viewed. But at the same time, It seems that there are many relative "ethnic" points in our tradition that we maintain as a matter of importance even though they do not seemingly apply to the social environment we are living in. For example, the dress that monks wear.
I am interested to hear the devotees thoughts on these ideas.
Your servant,
Forrest
Bhakta Ivar - November 24, 2004 10:47 am
I have a question: Can one be considered a Gaudiya Vaisnava when one views the Puranas as a collection of symbolic descriptions, rather than history?
There is a list of associates of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu where their identity in Srimad-Bhagavatam is given, i.e. "mythological" persons like Brahma, Narada, etc. Even Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and his father are identified with certain gopis.
It seems there is no place (anymore) for viewing the lilas as metaphores. One who wishes to do so can not be considered a Gaudiya Vaisnava, or?
Ivar
Shyam Gopal Das - November 24, 2004 12:27 pm
Reply to Bhakta Ivar:
Guru Maharaj writes: "Sometimes there is exaggeration in scripture, metaphorical speech, etc. However, it should be made clear that exaggeration does not occur in descriptions of Krsna lila, which is governed by acintya sakti (inconceivable energy). Although much of Krsna lila serves as a metaphor through which we are taught a philosophical conclusion, Krsna lila itself is a reality--the highest reality. Otherwise, poetic license is sometimes invoked throughout the Bhagavatam, which is an explanation of the Absolute through poetry (rasa sastra)."
http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/...three/m169.html
Also read: http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/vnn/ET16-3063.html
In a way, we can read the lilas as metaphor, but we should not do away with the reality of the lilas. True reality lies more in the lila than in the metaphor it could represent. By the mind and intellect, these metaphors may be understood, but the lilas themselves can not be understood by mind or intellect. In that way, we may intellectually do away with the lila and keep the metaphor, but then we throw away the reality of love and even God, Krishna. What remains of reality if we do so?
Sure, the descriptions of the lilas may be limited to paper and pen, but this should be an incentive for us to find this world of lila within ourselves.
Forrest - November 24, 2004 7:18 pm
sri sri guru-gaurangau jayatah!
Thanks for sharing your insightful points and posting those quotes Shyam Gopal.
I very much appreciate them because they confirm my personal understanding, answers questions I had, and brings up new ones all at the same time.
I was wondering particularly how we are to see the "ethnic" features in Gaura and Krsna lila. I mean to say that we see in them features that we can classify as Indian or of some connection to Indian culture. But we do not say that God is from India, so how are we to understand this? As I understand it, the Lord manifests himself and his entourage in this earthly realm through his inconceivable potency. In performing his lila he plays as a human in that particular culture, place and time. The activities he performs are absolute, but that does not necessarily say that Indian culture is absolute. We can take his activities literal, like Nandanandana *did* indeed lift Govardhana, because his activities are reality.
At the same time, it is said that the Lord cannot be approached with words and the mind. So how are we to understand a literal statement about a personality that is beyond words?
In the vedic scripture there are also descriptions of higher realms that are within the material world and of the personalities that reside there, they are not absolute. For example it is described that Lord Brahma that lord Brahma has four heads. Are we to take this point literally? It is also described that Brahma has a body made of intelligence, which means that he is beyond the perception of the mind. What to speak of the eyes.
So it seems we can understand that the "mythical" imagery can be taken metaphorically to describe something that is beyond the reach of the gross senses and mind. But it can be taken literal in that it is a fact that there is a personality in this universe named Brahma. When the metaphors given about him are contemplated we can get insight into his nature, even though his nature is beyond the reach of even our mind.
Another good example of "mythical" imagery is the description of the universe in the Srimad Bhagavatam. I personally would have a hard time to take these points as literal. But when they are seen in a metaphorical way we see that these descriptions are not far away from modern scientific observation. So we can take them literal in that they refer to the reality of material nature, giving insight about its workings and nature through the metaphors.
Eager to hear the devotees' thoughts on this,
forrest
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - November 24, 2004 11:49 pm
The activities he performs are absolute, but that does not necessarily say that Indian culture is absolute.
None the less being born in this sacred land of Bharat Matha, the land of divine incarnations, is very auspicious 
Dayal Govinda Dasa - November 25, 2004 5:36 am
I was wondering particularly how we are to see the "ethnic" features in Gaura and Krsna lila. I mean to say that we see in them features that we can classify as Indian or of some connection to Indian culture. But we do not say that God is from India, so how are we to understand this? As I understand it, the Lord manifests himself and his entourage in this earthly realm through his inconceivable potency. In performing his lila he plays as a human in that particular culture, place and time. The activities he performs are absolute, but that does not necessarily say that Indian culture is absolute.
The first point to note is that Joseph Campbell is neither a Gaudiya nor a sadhu, and therefore we cannot try and explain our siddhanta in his terms.
(I'm not suggesting you were, just making a point)
Guru maharaj has explained that the lila is all about bhava, and that when sages under the influence of such divine emotions have experienced the lila, we find it as it is told to us in the sastra. What I mean to say is that Krsna lila does not take place in a pastoral setting on the banks of the Yamuna merely because that happened to be where he appeared and what the people lived like at the time. It is described that the prakata and aprakata lila are nondifferent (yet different, naturally).
So this would pose the question, how could the nitya lila take on the appearance of the culture of the time?
Another aspect of this is that there are 'cultural' elements of the lila that may not be relevant to our culture and sensibilities but are nonetheless constituents of the eternal pastimes of Krsna and Mahaprabhu. As Guru maharaja mentioned on another thread, the brahmin thread may not be relevent to western society and thus its efficacy may be called into question. This does not, however, do away with the fact that in Mahaprabhu's nitya lila he is served by brahmin boys, all wearing the sacred thread and chanting the brahma gayatri thrice daily.
It is our inability to simply 'think' about these things that causes the problem. As was mentioned on another thread in regards to a similar issue, there are certainly parts of the sastra that are cultural and relative to a different time and place, and these should be discussed and examined. When it comes to the lila, however, we are cautioned not to apply the same mental scrutiny with regards to how it appears to our 'modern' mind since we run the risk of mythologising and metaphorising (I know it's not a word, I'm claiming poetic licence) the lila, and God, away.
daso 'smi
Dayal Govinda dasa
Forrest - November 25, 2004 6:41 am
The first point to note is that Joseph Campbell is neither a Gaudiya nor a sadhu, and therefore we cannot try and explain our siddhanta in his terms.(I'm not suggesting you were, just making a point)
Indeed. Phrasing my questions based on his terms was my personal attempt to objectively look at our understandings from a different angle.
It is our inability to simply 'think' about these things that causes the problem.
Well said.
As was mentioned on another thread in regards to a similar issue, there are certainly parts of the sastra that are cultural and relative to a different time and place, and these should be discussed and examined. When it comes to the lila, however, we are cautioned not to apply the same mental scrutiny with regards to how it appears to our 'modern' mind since we run the risk of mythologising and metaphorising (I know it's not a word, I'm claiming poetic licence) the lila, and God, away.
That makes a lot of sense to me, particularly the point of intellectualizing God away. That was not my intention. Indeed, I have to say that I felt awkward to try to view lila in that way. Even when starting this chain of thought I realized that it is defective, because substantial insight comes from "above" rather than intellectual stretching. If nothing else the discussion highlighted this fact.
Bhakta Ivar - November 25, 2004 9:18 am
Reply to Bhakta Ivar:Guru Maharaj writes: "Sometimes there is exaggeration in scripture, metaphorical speech, etc. However, it should be made clear that exaggeration does not occur in descriptions of Krsna lila, which is governed by acintya sakti (inconceivable energy). Although much of Krsna lila serves as a metaphor through which we are taught a philosophical conclusion, Krsna lila itself is a reality--the highest reality. Otherwise, poetic license is sometimes invoked throughout the Bhagavatam, which is an explanation of the Absolute through poetry (rasa sastra)."
Persons like Joseph Campbell might reply that every religion acknowledges that some scriptures contain mythology, but not their own. In this case we may acknowledge that the Puranas and even the Bhagavata abounds in mythology and metaphores, but not the tenth canto, which is the basis of our religion.
It will be difficult to defend that point. We can only find out whether Krishna lila is truly eternal when we are ´reborn´ on Goloka, which is something that doesn´t happen on Earth or in this lifetime.
The eternal world where perfected souls go is free of death. Thus weapons have no practical meaning there. Yet many of the avataras of Visnu have weapons. Like Lord Ramachandra. So the pictures we have of Sri Rama, carrying bow and arrows, is not likely to be an image to be found in the eternal sky.
But if we continue this reasoning there may also be no need for teeth, a nose etc. The human body is ultimately designed for functioning within this reality of air, food and defacation, light and shadow, death and reproduction.
So one may wonder whether the eternal world really contain all the elements of Krishna lila. Yes Forrest, Krishna appeared to be Indian, but we may also say He was described in human terms. The human body with all its practical organs, which we perceive to be beautiful, but which other species do not find significant.
At this point my words may be described as impersonalism of some sort. But we really cannot know, and certainly not conceive, what the ultimate eternal reality would be like. Logically it´s a world of love and harmony, which means service, and thus Krishna lila is a perfect metaphore. And bhajan is the best way to approach that reality.
Help! 
Ivar
Vrajendra Kumara Dasa - November 25, 2004 1:00 pm
Haribol, dear Vaisnavas.
although being myself on the platform of kaumala sraddha, tender faith, and living a very mundane life, I feel urged to add some thougts, which have been inspired by everything being said till now on this thread.
I would like to suggest that one key to understand these issues of myth and reality might be to remember that nothing is impossible.
Although Krsna appeares into seemingly mundane settings, and one might conclude that humans tend to mistake the externals of his appearance as essential, it is still possible that Krsna can choose to appear in circumstances that resemble the elements of his eternal lila, elements that are designed according to his eternal abode, and therefore be essential for those who want to please Krsna by their appearance or who want to remember Krsna and his asscociates more easily.
And isn't it said that Krsna appears along with his devotees and his eternal abode?
Might Krsna not be able to arrange the circumstances of the world and time he appears in according to his liking. Even though there might be rational, historical explanations, how a certain culture or event evolved, isn't it possible that Krsna directly or inderectly is beyond all of this? Such as when he appeared as little Nimai in Nadia to Mother Saci, all the residents of Navadwip would chant Harinam. Yes, they did so because of the lunar eclipse which they considered inauspicious, but that doesn't mean that the hand of our sweet Lord might not be behind such events.
Yes, we hear that there is no death in Vaikunhtha, but still Lord Rama might carry a bow there. Because to bring about certain rasas, anything might serve as an impetus for that, even the fear of death or of demons in an eternal abode. (But that doesn't necessary mean, that souls suffer there. There even apparent suffering might be bliss, whereas on our plane of perception even so called bliss might not be deep happiness at all.) Radha is completely lost in agony because of the fear that Krsna might leave her, although he is completely dependend on her, who is his very heart. Are we to conclude that Radha isn't essentially happy?
There might be no need for anything in Krsnas abode, but aren't necessities just something that jiva baddhas have? Krsna doesn't need anything, because he is everything. But he is eternally manifested in unlimited varieties of expressions to celebrate and enjoy himself.
The words of the pure devotees in this world intended to carry their own ecstatic experiences might be limited, but does this have to imply that they are mere poetry, that these words cannot bring about absolute knowledge? Their words might be misunderstood, but to a sincere seeker they may reveal eternal truths and the beauty of variegated lilas, lilas which happen to resemble many aspects of the lives of human beings. Mere chance?
Hoping that this does make sense.
ys Vrajendra Kumara dasa
Forrest - November 26, 2004 1:24 am
Although Krsna appeares into seemingly mundane settings, and one might conclude that humans tend to mistake the externals of his appearance as essential, it is still possible that Krsna can choose to appear in circumstances that resemble the elements of his eternal lila, elements that are designed according to his eternal abode, and therefore be essential for those who want to please Krsna by their appearance or who want to remember Krsna and his asscociates more easily.
And isn't it said that Krsna appears along with his devotees and his eternal abode?
Brilliant point, it nicely points out that for the sadhaka lila is the absolute "elementary" principle, using Campbell's term.
The primary defect in trying to apply the vision of intellectual scholars to lila seems to be that the vision of the scholar cannot reach beyond intellectual perception. Lila is far beyond the perception of the intellect.
But it seems that if the outlook of the intellectual scholars is taken for what it is, namely understanding of the "mundane" spheres of the body, senses, mind and intellect, one may gain some deeper intellectual understanding of the parts of our tradition that deal with these aspects of our experience. Any thoughts about that?
Swami - November 26, 2004 6:36 pm
The ethnic and other details of the lila are important. In smaranam, detail is stressed. The more detailed and specific one's meditation the better it becomes. As a side note here, our particular lineage does not train sadhakas in smaranam, but rather it emphasizes kirtanam and its power to beget smaranam, kirtanam prabhave samanam svabhave. It should be noted that with regard to revelation of and subsequent meditation on one's svarupa and the nitya lila that Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura in his Ragavartma Candrika writes of three possibilities: hearing of one's svarupa from one's initiating guru, hearing of it from a sadhu or siksa guru, or awakening it through spiritual practice. We emphasize the third option.
At any rate, again, details are important. They are important because they are integral to the lila. They are, however, not equally important to our practice other than in lila smaranam. Universal application of sadhana transcends ethnic details, and this enables all persons to readily approach the ideal and also enables us to make a presentation that has intellectual integrity. Thus superstitions found in the lila, for example, need not be something we insist that people belive in here and now, nor do we need to insist that all practitioners learn to cook Indian cuisine for Bhagavan Sri Krsna. We can adjust numerous details to make the tradition universally approachable in order to facilitate the awakening of bhava. Remember that it is bhava that that the lila is all about. This is what fuels it.
However, in bhava bhakti, the stage before prema bhakti, the superstitions of the lila, its ethnic details and so on will be part of the devotees internal meditation. The world of spiritual emotion does not answer to intellect. It is a drama, and as we know, it is normal for things to happen in drama differently than they do in real life. Here however, the drama is the real life, and our sensual and intellectual frame of reference is limited and a false perception.
The sadhya (goal) is very different from the sadhana. Bhava-bhakti breaches the gap between the two. What is the difference? Someone once asked me if there was any real sex in the spiritual world, and I replied that there is no real sex in the material world. The lila is aprakrta. It is fully mundane in appearance, but fully transcendental in reality. This is very esoteric. Many things that we preach against for a life of sadhana are part of everyday life in the sadhya of Goloka.
Overall, we differ from Campbell in that we do not equate Krsna-lila with the myths of other traditions. We do not think that Krsna-lila is simply a metaphor from which to draw universal truths. Krsna-lila is full of metaphorical truth, but this is not all that it consists of. The lilas are an ontological reality, the highest reality. For that matter, I do not think that other traditions think of their myths in the way we think of Krsna-lila (with a view to live in them eternally), nor are any other cultural or religious myths anywhere near as charming, detailed, or profound as Krsna-lila. It is in a class of its own, as it should be. Campbell has not entirely missed this, for Indian mythology was his personal favorite. However, he was not familiar with Vaisnava theology and had a distinct leaning towards the so-called perennial philosophy of Advaita Vedanta.
Remember that the idea that Krsna is God is considerably more well thought out than what we find in Greek mythology about Zeus, etc. The theological and philosophical underpinning of the lila is considerable to say the least. I do not believe that there is any comparison that can be made with other religious mythology. If one insists that an advaitic approach to Krsna lila is more rational, this is a subject for a lively debate that would no doubt embarrass most Adviatins and also shed light on many of Advaita Vedanta's own logical inconsistencies.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - November 28, 2004 6:52 am
It seems that there are many relative "ethnic" points in our tradition that we maintain as a matter of importance even though they do not seemingly apply to the social environment we are living in.
Mind needs handles -- it cannot grip Infinite. It’s like deity -- slowly with your progress finite form melts away, but you must have some material form before you in the beginning. Otherwise you say -- "Oh God is everywhere, why do I need deity?" In a big picture it might be true, but there are some rules even in raga-marga. Ethnic points you are talking about are banks of the river, to control, to discipline, to give you handles, to help you on your path. After you are ready banks will disappear and your river will turn into beautiful free waterfall.
Vamsidhari Dasa - November 28, 2004 11:14 pm
I would like to add a couple of points to this interesting philosophical and spiritual discussion although I am not much of a philosopher or spiritually advanced.
"... A mythology is, in this sense, an organization of metaphorical figures connotative of states of mind that are not finally of this or that place and time, notwithstanding that the figures themselves initially suggest localization.
What Cmbell is indirectly referring to here are archetypes. He was heavily influienced by analtical psychology (i.e., CG Jung) and used these ideas to "shed light to the mythological world" as well as make lots of money. I am not much of a analytic psychologist, but I spent many years studying Jungian thought and finally abandoned it due to difficulty in seeing these ideas as valuble in every day clinical practice. Therefore, what I say here althoug informed, should not be taken as necesseraly representative of Jungian thought.
Archetypes can be defined as concreticized expressions of universality of human experience. Jung believed they are contained in the Collective Uncoscious, but are expressed in the personal consciesness or uncosciousness as symbols. They are, by definition, unknowable and undefinable yet ther are saturated with meaning. In order to explain how seemingly unrelated and isolated cultures, in different times and geografical locations, came up with the same symbols to explain the same phenomena, Jung postulated the existance of the Collective Uncoscious as the reservour of all human experiences used to giude us through life. He said, "The world he is born into is already born in him." Meaning that at birth inside our minds already exist some kind of template about the world even though we never experienced it. Archetypes can be seen as "psychic genes" imprinted in our unosciousness.
The first point to note is that Joseph Campbell is neither a Gaudiya nor a sadhu, and therefore we cannot try and explain our siddhanta in his terms.
Yes, that is true, but we need to be able to think about how we think about things. We might not want to use a book about auto-mechanics to understand submarines but if thats all we have then some knowledge about engines from auto-mechanics might come handy. I say this because I believe that our minds (and by this I mean the thinking/feeling part of our being) are the canvasses on which the Divine can paint Himself. For example, even though the origin of spiritual emotion might be external its effects are experienced internally and exibited on the body and in the mind. Even though we are not our house we cannot deny that the body is where we live and the medium through which we experience the world. Some openess to understanding the mind is desirable and should not be a priori rejected.
It is our inability to simply 'think' about these things that causes the problem. As was mentioned on another thread in regards to a similar issue, there are certainly parts of the sastra that are cultural and relative to a different time and place, and these should be discussed and examined. When it comes to the lila, however, we are cautioned not to apply the same mental scrutiny with regards to how it appears to our 'modern' mind since we run the risk of mythologising and metaphorising (I know it's not a word, I'm claiming poetic licence) the lila, and God, away
I agree that we are unable to think about these things that to some appear fantastic or mythological in a way we are required to do to undertand them. This is primeraly due to difficulties in thinking we all have. The extent to which we will be able to be engaged with the lilas are dependent on the depth of our faith. At the same time approaching the lilas "thoughtlessly" would not help to become engaged with them. Suspention of disbelief is necessary if we are to enter into any written word. It is a characteristic of our mind that let us enjoy a reading or a story because we become part of it. I am not advocating this is the way to read the scripture just talking about "engagement." To put something in question in a thoughfull way is not the same as "explaining it away" but actually, in my opinion, to come to know it intimately [mythologizing and metaphorizing are great words, btw].
The lila is aprakrta. It is fully mundane in appearance, but fully transcendental in reality. This is very esoteric. Many things that we preach against for a life of sadhana are part of everyday life in the sadhya of Goloka.
I would like to humbly submit that this tells me that the membrane beween the mondane and the spiritual is actually very porous. I think that the more we aproach the spiritual world in reality, the less rigid this membrane becomes. In a sense there is free flowing fluidity between these different aspects of being. It is when we are rigid and make sharp distictions, although we do it in order to gain psychological safety, we begin to stagnate. I am not advocating some kind of artificial renunciation of disctinction between these two but see it as an end result of a process of becoming spiritualized. That is why, in my opinion, the acharyas can speak to us about the spiritual reality with such conviction: they freely move between spiritual and mondane and use the "mondane" to enable us to understand the spiritual.
Remember that the idea that Krsna is God is considerably more well thought out than what we find in Greek mythology about Zeus, etc. The theological and philosophical underpinning of the lila is considerable to say the least. I do not believe that there is any comparison that can be made with other religious mythology.
I always wondered how to explain the similarities between the Greek, Persian, and Aryan religions. I have some recollection that Srila Prabhupada wrote in one of the books I read, that all people come from India. He referred to Greeks and Persians as former Aryan tribes. I apologize for not being aboe to find that quote now. But there might be something to that given that many European languages and Slavic in particular are known as Indo-European in origin. Unfortunatelly, the greeks did not rely on scriptures for their religious rites. The only speaker form those times to us is Homer and his work is moslty not seen as "religious" yet he was revered as such figure by those who were intitiated into the "misteries" before the advent of Christianity. The Christinas spread through out Europe when they either systematically distroyed Greek "religion" or absorbed its aspects into their own religious practice. Therefore, we do not have a faithful representation of the Greek religion today given that it has been villified and grosely misrepresented by those Jewish political refugies who later called themselves Christians. Both the Greeks and the Romans respected spiritual and religious practices of the people they conquered, the Christians lie a virus inflitrated the "host nations" and imposed their rule from within. By looking at the Greek pantheon as a "barbaric infedels" the Christians stripped Zeus of his glory. In fact what was once "the world's religion" today is just a mare collection of myths we read as interesting ancient stories.
In humble service,
Vamsidhari dasa 
Narada-kunda Dasi - December 1, 2004 1:27 pm
I wonder if this discussion refers to the same thing Krsna says to Arjuna, that "Now I shall explain to you knowledge both phenomenal (the details) and numinous (the principles), after which nothing will remain for you to know"? (Forgive the paraphrasing.) Often I contemplate this topic. Krsna is the male principle, the "energetic", in Prabhupada's words, the source of information; Radha with her so many expansions all the way down to earthly female forms is the "energy", the manifestation -- but they are so intertwined that neither can be conceived of without the other. This makes for such fascinating meditation...
(this is the closest to blissful smiley)
Forrest - December 2, 2004 11:35 am
I always wondered how to explain the similarities between the Greek, Persian, and Aryan religions. I have some recollection that Srila Prabhupada wrote in one of the books I read, that all people come from India. He referred to Greeks and Persians as former Aryan tribes. I apologize for not being aboe to find that quote now. But there might be something to that given that many European languages and Slavic in particular are known as Indo-European in origin. Unfortunatelly, the greeks did not rely on scriptures for their religious rites.
This is a point that I have been thinking about recently. There is reference in Srimad Bhagavatam of some events during Parasurama-lila. It is said that many of the administrative class fled Parasurama and found shelter in present day Egypt, Iraq, and Greece. This adds an interesting insight on what we know of these cultures and there effect on our modern western culture.
The ksatriyas were rebelling against the system of varnashram dharma, the rigid backbone of society at that time and place. They did not want to take the advice of the intellectual class; they wanted to rule the land according to their whim and understanding. The ksatriya class is said to be by nature passionate. People with such natures often emphasize the worship of the various demigods of this world to get some material reward (karma-kanda). In other words, this sort of religion is carried out ultimately with a selfish motive.
This materialism was incorporated in the various religious traditions that sprung up around the Mediterranean. There are stories of the debauchery of heavenly gods, brave warriors, kings descended from the sun. Worship was done with the desire to achieve heavenly pleasures. These sort of activities are referred to in various places in ancient Indian scripture. But due to these warriors casting aside the affectionate advice of pure sadhus, they had no understanding of reality beyond matter and the senses.
It is interesting to consider these things in reference to modern events and society.
jaya sri parasurama!
