Just some misunderstandings...

[Guest guest]

>

> I was thinking overnight about this one. See again I think we are

> misunderstanding over semantics or the meaning of words.

 

>

> That was NOT sankirtan.

 

Yes, you are right. Sorry. I misunderstood that with "sankirtan"

you had the memories of something that was not sankirtan. No

honest person with some dignity (regardless of varna) would like

to be exploited for somebody's sense gratification in the name

of sankirtan. I understand now what you meant.

 

 

> > So what if you are in Maya. Big deal. You want VAD, there

> > is no such excuse. There you do happily your sudra occupation. Or

> > vaisya's. Whatever your varna is. But not the one of a brahmana, if you

> > are not that by your nature nor you can qualify yourself for it.

>

> So here you are so ready to judge me, yet you dont know my heart at all.

 

I am really sorry. The way it is written appears to be a personal

judgment, thought it might not be intended so. That is the problem,

as soon as someone uses his own personal example to support some

general point/argument of his, then that same example is being further

used for the same purpose -- to make a general point/argument.

Please just assume that instead "you" there's written "one" or "I".

My mistake not to do it immediately. I for sure really don't know

neither your heart nor your particular varna at all. I am neither

your Guru, nor Paramatma. Nor your wife.

 

 

 

> Earlier you mentioned that we should not have sudras in our temples. Well

> again I disagree. Sudras are not by nature disruptive. Actualy there are

> examples of many sudras being great devotees. What about the story of the

> illiterate man who was reading the gita and crying? He was looking at the

> pictures, and understood intrinsicaly what was happening.

 

I agree with you that the devotees of Lord, regardless of their

external "varna dress", are to be definitely living in the Lord's

temples.

Yes, you are completely right when saying "I think we are

misunderstanding over semantics or the meaning of words." In this

instance, with "sudra" we meant different things.

 

Otherwise, personally I remain with my conviction that those

persons who are unable (out of whatever reasons) to qualify

themselves to live in the mode of goodness should not be living

in the temple. When I say "sudra", I mean someone conditioned by

the lower modes of material nature, such as predominantly

ignorance mixed with some passion to it, as explained so in

sastras.

 

 

-

 

 

I have been responding here simply for the sake of not letting

some bad misunderstandings to be hanging in the air. Nothing

of discussing nor arguing anything with anybody

 

(Got to live in exile for some time with hope to be able to reform

my bad natural varnic inclinations, and thus to qualify myself for

the eventual come-back into VAD. I see it already, will not work,

you can't change the zebra's stripes, but as per desire of the

Vaisnavas that are above the modes of material nature, let's give

it a try anyway).

 

 

 

 

- mnd