Namaste everyone
I want answers from everyone especially the the older generation gentlemen who already passed through a lot and uncovered a lot of knowledge.
I have read it in a lot of threads here about the validation of the gurus and the vedic instructions especially puranas// Many support those standard instructions, however i feel they only cherry pick amongst them because i see no one follow the actual thing or the whole thing. For example people do go against women wearing miniskirts when they dont wear a dhoti or a loin cloth themselves? People support puranic culture yet go against child marriage..But if i have to follow the puranas i should follow them completely. Else it is like watching a movie of bollywood and picking what is good and avoiding what is bad.
Now with due respect to all the proponents of vedic instructions why is it that we dont follow everything but chose only what we deem is accurate?
Also Is it wrong to think that the puranas etc were also written by people with limited conception of both mind and matter?
It seems like i read a book of instructions which i personally never experienced nor do i ever feel i will.
Since bhagavata is considered one of the top “satvic” puranas and since i have read it i will give my experience on it.When i came across certain portions especially the structure of the universe and also embryology i was left despondent. To say i(as a common man) should accept it as formidable truth just because it was written by a great proponent of vedic culture seems unfair. I would be dishonest to my soul if i followed parts of it despite knowing that the other parts are untrue.
Or should i just go with the notion “How dare i speak against puranas? Am i greater than the knowers of truth? I should believe that earth is flat just as how i believe God is blue and has a flute”
.
For i as a beginner would obviously chose spirituality deeming it to be the perfect absolute unparallelled truth. But if even there i find inadequacies how else do i react ?
So if a person calls God as Brahma,another Shiva,another Vishnu it is because of his own limitations/interpretations isnt it? Otherwise how can a sage like suka who claims to know the reality give false versions of material reality like false embryology and a false structure of the universe? Because in ishopanishad verse 14 it is explicitly mentioned one who knows material nature knows the truth ..
So if a sage like suka talks of knowing the spiritual truth it is obvious he should know material truth too.Also many people who might be atheistic scientists but who discover facts about the material nature might also be called the seekers of truth if you go by verse 14 of ishopanishad.
And who would you choose? A scientist who gives you a fact or a sage who tells you he knows the truth yet ends up doctoring a material fallacy. And is it wrong to think he described an imaginary form of god just like how he described an imaginary form of moon or earth?
My third point is progression. For me God is truth. Every soul ascends to that truth. How do we say that the people of the previous ages knew better than us? It might be just that every sage documents his experiences in the form of writings. So just like science which always progresses to something higher is it wrong to think what was conceived as truth in the previous age due to limitations of mind and matter progresses in todays age to a conception which is not only different but also higher?
However no one can deny we dont know the actual truth. Also i know that this is kali and my senses are limited but asking me to believe in a blue god is tantamount to asking me to believe in a flat earth carried by four elephants. How do i convince myself and rid myself of internal conflict?
Bookmarks