Comments on: Digging for Truth

By: Citta Hari dasa

Citta Hari dasa — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:56:17 +0000

but as we know all these things are beyond empirical verification.

Exactly. It’s not like scientifically-minded people are just going to accept the accounts of the sastras, whether the Gita or Caitanya-caritamrta. It’s not an epistemology they accept.

By: Gaura-Vijaya dasa

Gaura-Vijaya dasa — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:56:47 +0000

Yes proving something like Krsna showed the universal form to Arjuna or Mahaprabhu showed the sad-bhuja form to Sarvabhauma or Krsna lifted the Govardhan may help, but as we know all these things are beyond empirical verification.

By: Citta Hari dasa

Citta Hari dasa — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:29:20 +0000

Worm,

Historicity is one thing, divinity another. It may be possible to prove that Mahaprabhu existed as a historical figure, but to prove that he was svayam bhagavan? Dubious at best. What proof will suffice for those who don’t wish to acknowledge it? There were plenty of people who saw him directly who didn’t accept it. In present times those who hear hagiographical accounts and accept him as divine already have some samskara for bhakti. I don’t see how historical proof would do much of anything other than to perhaps bolster the faith of those who already follow him.

By: Gaura-Vijaya dasa

Gaura-Vijaya dasa — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:21:15 +0000

That is true, but there is no need to stop these excavation attempts. It may sometimes surprise some closed minded people to open up their minds. BVT actually encourages such efforts in Krsna Samhita.
To some extent such efforts, whether they prove or disprove scriptural data, can make people less fanatic and make people aware of the need to delve into deeper meaning of the scripture to strengthen their faith.

By: Nitaisundara

Nitaisundara — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:31:10 +0000

I don’t know. The research is interesting, as much research is. I would of course be interested to hear conclusive details of any discovery in this realm, but I think that devotees’ time and energy could probably be better spent, if for nothing else than at least for direct spiritual practice.

But considering there are trained specialists to study everything, why skip over India’s rich culture and history?

By: gopala dasa

gopala dasa — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:00:20 +0000

“Ultimately, one of the most fundamental motivations in efforts such as these is to reinforce tender faith.”

Definitely this is the case. Many of these efforts are also closely aligned with agendas such as Hindutva (Hindu nationalism), and have therefore little legitimacy either scientifically or spiritually. The controversy surrounding Rama Setu is a prime example of this, as NASA images “proving” the existence of the bridge are all over the Internet. Not only do pseudo-scientific assertions seem patently unnecessary (and also false) but — as you point out — they distract those whose faith hinges on such “discoveries” from much more profound undertakings.

By: Worminstool

Worminstool — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:14:24 +0000

When it comes to archaeological evidence that proves the historicity of Krishna, that might be an impossible task. However, the Gaudiya Vaishnavas can be quite content that there is historicity that can be attributed to Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So, for the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, their Lord God was on Earth around 500 years ago. If Mahaprabhu can be proven historically, then the Gaudiyas should be satisfied that they in fact have the greatest historicity of any modern religion.
The Gaudiyas don’t need to prove the historicity of Krishna. If they can prove the historicity of Mahaprabhu, then proof of Krishna is already there.
500 years ago is not very long ago compared to 5000 years ago. Most religions originate so many thousands of years back in antiquity that adulteration and tampering with the origins is assured.
In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, there appears to be enough significant historical evidence to support the historicity of Mahaprabhu that any need to prove the historicity of Krishna becomes irrelevant.

By: Syama Gopala dasa

Syama Gopala dasa — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:44:28 +0000

Nice points, Nitai. I understand from your piece that you feel there is no worth in scientific research on the grounds of bhakti. But do you feel there are some other benefits to research on Vedic culture, or should devotees forego the research all together?