A Devotee is Compassionate
Since the devotee of Lord derives his happiness only from serving the Lord and does not depend on any form of pseudo happiness derived by lording it over others in this material world, he is able to purely love all beings through the process of purely loving the source of all existence, Lord Sri Krishna. Some may object, "Why are you promoting Krishna as the Supreme and not someone else?". The reason we do this is that this is the conclusion of the Vedic scriptures and of the great sages who guided the Vedic civilization for thousands of years. Our duty is to repeat honestly and accurately what we have heard from the great authorities. The result of our giving the highest, most complete knowledge of God is that those who hear it and understand it will be given the best possible opportunity for achieving spiritual perfection in this lifetime. So why shouldn't we give them the best help by supplying them with the most complete information? Any other course of action would be less compassionate.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Krishna and His Cowherd Boy Friends
I am struggling with something at the moment that is causing me quite a lot of spiritual distress. I had a discussion with someone the other day about Krishna and the Bhagavad-gita and tried (in my best way) to explain Krishna to him. He listened very intensely and when we were finished, said that although all the things I said to him seem very interesting and good, he has no reason to believe me.
Quite shocked, I asked him what he meant. He asked me if I have any historical proof outside the Vedic scriptures that Krishna ever existed. He said that although the towns and villages still exist in India it does not mean Krishna actually existed. He also used this argument about the Christian faith and said there is no historical proof that Jesus even existed. He said that it is very common especially in India for people to exalt war heroes or other personalities to deity status and worship them. He also mentioned that people always exaggerate especially when it comes to religion.
This has left me a bit dumbstruck. Do we have any historical proof that Lord Krishna existed? I did not know how to answer him and said I will try and find some answers and get back to him. This has made me think a bit and left me confused.
Your advice will be greatly appreciated.
Eugene
What makes an eye witness account of a materialistic person better history than an eye witness account of a spiritual person? This person is not open minded. He has an anti-spiritual bias which is clouding his judgment and perception. An eye witness account is an eye witness account.
People are often prone to misrepresent material history as well. So we have to carefully analyze the source of all historical documents to ascertain their credibility. A self-realized sage who is the perfect knower of past, present, and future is a more reliable eye witness of history than a person who is illusioned by bodily consciousness and thus subject to defective perception. Therefore we will accept the version of a pure saint as more credible history than a selfish materialist.
In other words, it is sometimes said that the history books are written by those who win the wars. This means that history is always presented in a biased way by those who are in power. This is why we need to get our lessons in history from those who are beyond material ambitions, the pure devotees of the Lord.
Anybody who wants to know the truth of Krishna can qualify himself to meet Krishna face to face and know from firsthand experience that Krishna is a real person, that His pastimes are real, and that He is indeed the source of everything. If your friend is too skeptical to qualify himself to meet Krishna in His original form through bhakti, Krishna will manifest Himself before him in the form of death. In this way he will realize the reality of Krishna.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Krishna and His Cowherd Boy Friends
Answers According to the Vedic Version:
Question: Historical Proof for Krishna?
Hare Krishna, dear Maharaja. Thank you for your wonderful effort to increase our knowledge of Krishna.I am struggling with something at the moment that is causing me quite a lot of spiritual distress. I had a discussion with someone the other day about Krishna and the Bhagavad-gita and tried (in my best way) to explain Krishna to him. He listened very intensely and when we were finished, said that although all the things I said to him seem very interesting and good, he has no reason to believe me.
Quite shocked, I asked him what he meant. He asked me if I have any historical proof outside the Vedic scriptures that Krishna ever existed. He said that although the towns and villages still exist in India it does not mean Krishna actually existed. He also used this argument about the Christian faith and said there is no historical proof that Jesus even existed. He said that it is very common especially in India for people to exalt war heroes or other personalities to deity status and worship them. He also mentioned that people always exaggerate especially when it comes to religion.
This has left me a bit dumbstruck. Do we have any historical proof that Lord Krishna existed? I did not know how to answer him and said I will try and find some answers and get back to him. This has made me think a bit and left me confused.
Your advice will be greatly appreciated.
Eugene
Answer: Become an Eyewitness
The Vedic scriptures are historical documents. Ask him, "Besides historical documents is there any proof that George Washington ever existed?" If historical documents are not admissible as evidence, practically we will have to discard all of the history books and say that we have no idea of any past history of the human race.What makes an eye witness account of a materialistic person better history than an eye witness account of a spiritual person? This person is not open minded. He has an anti-spiritual bias which is clouding his judgment and perception. An eye witness account is an eye witness account.
People are often prone to misrepresent material history as well. So we have to carefully analyze the source of all historical documents to ascertain their credibility. A self-realized sage who is the perfect knower of past, present, and future is a more reliable eye witness of history than a person who is illusioned by bodily consciousness and thus subject to defective perception. Therefore we will accept the version of a pure saint as more credible history than a selfish materialist.
In other words, it is sometimes said that the history books are written by those who win the wars. This means that history is always presented in a biased way by those who are in power. This is why we need to get our lessons in history from those who are beyond material ambitions, the pure devotees of the Lord.
Anybody who wants to know the truth of Krishna can qualify himself to meet Krishna face to face and know from firsthand experience that Krishna is a real person, that His pastimes are real, and that He is indeed the source of everything. If your friend is too skeptical to qualify himself to meet Krishna in His original form through bhakti, Krishna will manifest Himself before him in the form of death. In this way he will realize the reality of Krishna.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Comments
Post a Comment