How can a vaishnava be offended? This doesn't make sense at all

[bhaktajan]

If some one offends Krishna he doesn't mind but if someone offends his devotee, then Krishna takes offense.

 

The D.I. [Drill Instructor] in the military is a strict, stern, yelling Man--but he loves his troops dearly.

 

When a Guru-like lecturer is confronted with poorly worded inquiries there is a 'cringe-factor' that may appear as if he is put-off by the questioner --this may be due to the nature of extemporaneous speaking: Trying to illustrate a moral with multiple references without loosing one train of thought--this applies at the end of a lecture too when questions that are tangential. Such tangential questions must be asked face to face, one-on-one with the lecturer--but many times a person does not make the sacrifice of approaching out of a false sense of modesty.

 

The Gita arises from offenses made to tolerant cousins who for pragmatic and other high-stake reasons had to respond as per their station in life: thus--civil war in the royal dynasty they had the obligation to protect against demonic chaos.

 

bhaktajan

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Why is it that threads about offense always end up as offense-fests?

 

Let's think of this another way, shall we? Think of karma. Sri Krishna certainly mentions karma in the Bhagavad Gita.

 

The word "offense" is a loaded one, since it implies all sorts of value judgements, doesn't it? So, let's put aside "offense" for a moment and consider karma--action and reaction.

 

The action of harming *anybody* (but, especially a pure devotee) will cause some "negative" reaction, won't it (if karma is, indeed, a universal law of nature)?

 

On the absolute level, certainly, Sri Krishna is infinite, and any minute action that we do here (which is still assuming that *we* are acting (which is an illusion of sorts), and not Sri Krishna) can in no way negatively affect Him. On the relative plane, on which we live, if we "offend" the Vaishnava--that is, if we defame or harm the Vaishnava, some reaction--unpleasant, perhaps--will come to us.

 

I hope that helps.

[Gaurhari]

From Tripurari Swami's "Sri Caitanya Sanga"

 

March 11, 2005, Vol. VII, No. 4

The Dust Holds One Accountable

Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari

 

Q. What does it mean when we hear that the Vaisnava forgives but the dust of his lotus feet does not? And is there any difference for the offender?

A. The idea comes from this verse in Srimad-Bhagavatam:

nascaryam etad yad asatsu sarvada mahad-vininda kunapatma-vadisu

sersyam mahaparusa-pada-pamsubhir nirasta-tejahsu tad eva sobhanam

“It is not out of the ordinary for evil persons who always think of the transient material body as the self to regularly deride great souls. Appropriately such envy on the part of materialistic persons causes them to become diminished in stature by the influence of the dust of the feet of great personalities (mahapurusa-pada-pamsubhir).” (SB. 4.4.13)

Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura draws on this verse in his Madhurya-Kadambini. Therein he discusses sadhu ninda (blaspheming devotees) in relation to anarthas arising from offenses to Nama Prabhu, the holy name of Krsna. The Thakura explains that great devotees (maha-bhagavatas) do not take offense because they are indifferent to honor and dishonor. However, should one who has offended a maha-bhagavata think that because of this fact an offender does not need to approach the maha-bhagavata's feet for forgiveness, one should think again. Why? Although maha-bhagavatas do not take offense, the dust of their feet does hold offenders accountable. Thus the spirit behind this statement is that one who has offended a great soul must approach that soul for forgiveness. Don't think otherwise.

Certainly the Lord takes offense when his devotees are vilified. Why then is the dust mentioned? What is the dust? The Lord is not the dust at the feet of his devotees. Although he would like to be, the Lord's devotees will never allow this. This dust represents the servants of the maha-bhagavata, who are fulfilling the Lord's most cherished desire to serve his dear devotees. Although his great devotees will never take service from the Lord, they mercifully accept service from others on his behalf and in doing so their bodily necessities and other needs are met. Thus it is through the servants of the great devotees that the Lord's desire to see his devotees personally served and glorified is fulfilled. In this sense the Lord is present in these servants, and when they take offense it also indicates that the Lord is offended.

[Redsox]

I had a discussion with my friend and she gave me a good answer. She said that it is just karma. The devotee whom you supposedly "offend" is really not offended, neither is krishna who is beyond the offense, but the bad intentions within you that made you act in a bad way give you bad reactions. Ofcourse, we say that it comes from krishna because all results good or bad are really given to the individual by krishna. Ofcourse, if you do something without any negative intentions, then there is no offense, and if anyone gets offended when there are no such feelings from you, then its their own problem.

 

Thank you for your help

[Beggar]

 

I had a discussion with my friend and she gave me a good answer. She said that it is just karma. The devotee whom you supposedly "offend" is really not offended, neither is krishna who is beyond the offense, but the bad intentions within you that made you act in a bad way give you bad reactions. Ofcourse, we say that it comes from krishna because all results good or bad are really given to the individual by krishna. Ofcourse, if you do something without any negative intentions, then there is no offense, and if anyone gets offended when there are no such feelings from you, then its their own problem.

Thank you for your help

 

Aparadha is like karma, in fact Srila Prabhupada used the phrase, "Krsna karma". So aparadha is like karma but it is also different. We can be engaged in karma but be quite innocent on the level of offenses against bhakti. Like Ajamila who called for his son, Narayana at the time of death but got the result of calling out to Bhagavan, Sri Narayana because he wasn't committing nama aparadha or offenses to the holy name. Vaisnava aparadha can also take offense unknowingly on the part of the offender . I believe that there is a story about Srila Rupa Goswami inadvertently offending a Vaisnava. Srila Rupa Goswami could detect this because his smaranam or remembrance of the pastimes of Radha and Krsna became weakened. Once he begged forgiveness from the Vaisnava he unknowingly offended, his lila smaranam was fully restored.

[Redsox]

 

Sri Krishna is infinite, and any minute action that we do here (which is still assuming that *we* are acting (which is an illusion of sorts), and not Sri Krishna) can in no way negatively affect Him. On the relative plane, on which we live, if we "offend" the Vaishnava--that is, if we defame or harm the Vaishnava, some reaction--unpleasant, perhaps--will come to us.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Yes that helps alot. Thats what my friend said too and it makes sense. It is our own mind and intentions that matter. This is why we need to keep a close watch on the mind and purify it of evil intentions with the help of hari nama. That way, we don't judge or offend good people unecessarily and reap bad benefits because of it.

[Redsox]

 

Vaisnava aparadha can also take offense unknowingly on the part of the offender . I believe that there is a story about Srila Rupa Goswami inadvertently offending a Vaisnava. Srila Rupa Goswami could detect this because his smaranam or remembrance of the pastimes of Radha and Krsna became weakened. Once he begged forgiveness from the Vaisnava he unknowingly offended, his lila smaranam was fully restored.

 

Can you tell me how this happens? what is the story? Do you have a web-link to the story anywhere?

[Beggar]

 

Can you tell me how this happens? what is the story? Do you have a web-link to the story anywhere?

 

The story may be in Caitanya Caritamrta but I'm having a hard time finding it.

To me this illustrates that if one is on a high level of bhakti then a slight aparadha can interupt one's devotional trance. Of course if we have no bhakti or no trance then that is another story. But still we have to avoid aparadhas in order to progress from any level.

[AncientMariner]

 

I had a discussion with my friend and she gave me a good answer. She said that it is just karma. The devotee whom you supposedly "offend" is really not offended, neither is krishna who is beyond the offense, but the bad intentions within you that made you act in a bad way give you bad reactions. Ofcourse, we say that it comes from krishna because all results good or bad are really given to the individual by krishna. Ofcourse, if you do something without any negative intentions, then there is no offense, and if anyone gets offended when there are no such feelings from you, then its their own problem.

 

Thank you for your help

 

 

Gotta admit I have wondered the same question you asked and what you just posted is as good as answer as I have ever seen to that question.

[indulekhadasi]

 

From Tripurari Swami's "Sri Caitanya Sanga"

 

March 11, 2005, Vol. VII, No. 4

The Dust Holds One Accountable

Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari

 

Q. What does it mean when we hear that the Vaisnava forgives but the dust of his lotus feet does not? And is there any difference for the offender?

A. The idea comes from this verse in Srimad-Bhagavatam:

nascaryam etad yad asatsu sarvada mahad-vininda kunapatma-vadisu

sersyam mahaparusa-pada-pamsubhir nirasta-tejahsu tad eva sobhanam

“It is not out of the ordinary for evil persons who always think of the transient material body as the self to regularly deride great souls. Appropriately such envy on the part of materialistic persons causes them to become diminished in stature by the influence of the dust of the feet of great personalities (mahapurusa-pada-pamsubhir).” (SB. 4.4.13)

Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura draws on this verse in his Madhurya-Kadambini. Therein he discusses sadhu ninda (blaspheming devotees) in relation to anarthas arising from offenses to Nama Prabhu, the holy name of Krsna. The Thakura explains that great devotees (maha-bhagavatas) do not take offense because they are indifferent to honor and dishonor. However, should one who has offended a maha-bhagavata think that because of this fact an offender does not need to approach the maha-bhagavata's feet for forgiveness, one should think again. Why? Although maha-bhagavatas do not take offense, the dust of their feet does hold offenders accountable. Thus the spirit behind this statement is that one who has offended a great soul must approach that soul for forgiveness. Don't think otherwise.

Certainly the Lord takes offense when his devotees are vilified. Why then is the dust mentioned? What is the dust? The Lord is not the dust at the feet of his devotees. Although he would like to be, the Lord's devotees will never allow this. This dust represents the servants of the maha-bhagavata, who are fulfilling the Lord's most cherished desire to serve his dear devotees. Although his great devotees will never take service from the Lord, they mercifully accept service from others on his behalf and in doing so their bodily necessities and other needs are met. Thus it is through the servants of the great devotees that the Lord's desire to see his devotees personally served and glorified is fulfilled. In this sense the Lord is present in these servants, and when they take offense it also indicates that the Lord is offended.

 

Wow, my father wrote something for once.

JAI NITAI!

[raghu]

 

I'm sure that this argument thoroughly establishes that the concept of Vaisnava aparadha is just a social convention. Yeah right! Try reading Caitanya Caritamrta. Oh that's right, you don't accept it as sastra.

 

Caitanya Caritamrta is not apaurusheya-vakya. It was written by Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Why would non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept it? Would you accept Divya Prabandham? Doubtful.

 

 

What are you doing on this forum anyway?

 

What makes him out of place on this forum? There are forum members who profess to be attached to Gaudiya Vaishnavism but disagree with Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas and call some GV Swamis as "foolish,ignorant," and so on. Then there are all the Christians, Muslims, mayavadis, new-agers, etc.

[theist]

I am wondering about how reducing it to "just karma" lines up with the fact that Krsna is a person, who has personal love towards His devotee and the fact that everything His devotee does is a love offering to Him.

 

Not saying it doesn't, just that it is not as clear to me as it seems to be with others.

[Redsox]

 

I am wondering about how reducing it to "just karma" lines up with the fact that Krsna is a person, who has personal love towards His devotee and the fact that everything His devotee does is a love offering to Him.

 

 

I don't know , when I read gita, it seemed like Krishna is a non-judging supreme person who is all full of love, compassion, , mercy and above "offense", and it just seemed like he saves us from our wrongs than judge and punish us because of them.

[suchandra]

 

I don't know , when I read gita, it seemed like Krishna is a non-judging supreme person who is all full of love, compassion, , mercy and above "offense", and it just seemed like he saves us from our wrongs than judge and punish us because of them.

 

 

HG Sriman Satyaraja prabhu: "...our differences could be set aside in favor of our common goal.."

Satyaraja das suggests that we agree with the wrongs of others and accept them as they are. What follows is that we are also accepted?

"I don't mean to ignore the very real problems that face us -- the abuse of power, the deception, the insincerity, the concrete differences in our understanding of the basic philosophy; these are all real enough. But I am saying that a good number of our differences could be set aside in favor of our common goal, and the realization that there are various approaches to that goal."

full article

[shvu]

 

Are you now saying people who do not accept chaitanya charitamrita should not post on the forum?

 

If you can look beyond your myopic view the number of vaishnavas from bengal are only a tiny fraction of the number of vaishnavas. I am from the line of srivaishnavas where happily we are aware of other brances of vaishnavas..something you seem to be unaware of.

 

Your usage of vaishnava for gaudiya vaishnava specific concepts are not only confusing but incorrect too. If you were to specifically say gaudiya vaishnav aparadha then you will not have people like me raise objections. But when you simply say vaishnava then other vaishnavas like myself will take notice.

 

Welcome to Audarya Fellowship!

 

I have said this before. There is a separate section exclusively assigned for the Hare Krishnas on this forum. For some reason, they seem to be unable to grasp the concept. Instead, they have all converged on the generic siprituality section and made it their playground where vaishnava = gaudiya vaishnava and or anything else they choose to redefine as from time to time based on circumstances. As for acknowledging other brances of Vaishnavas the reaction is who, what, where???

 

You a Sri Vaishnava are just as unwelcome as a Shaiva or anyone else for the simple reason that you do not agree with them on everything as evident by beggar challenging your presence here for not accepting Gaudiya scripture as authority.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

I don't know , when I read gita, it seemed like Krishna is a non-judging supreme person who is all full of love, compassion, , mercy and above "offense", and it just seemed like he saves us from our wrongs than judge and punish us because of them.

 

Redsox,

 

Good question and I admire you for not just accepting any answer like most people do. Beware of the christian interpretation of Krishna by some people here. They see Krishna as they would see the short-tempered, ever-ready-to-punish God of the Bible.

 

That is not the picture one would draw from the Gita when read free of Bible influences.

 

Cheers

[madanbhakta]

 

Welcome to Audarya Fellowship!

 

I have said this before. There is a separate section exclusively assigned for the Hare Krishnas on this forum. For some reason, they seem to be unable to grasp the concept. Instead, they have all converged on the generic siprituality section and made it their playground where vaishnava = gaudiya vaishnava and or anything else they choose to redefine as from time to time based on circumstances. As for acknowledging other brances of Vaishnavas the reaction is who, what, where???

 

You a Sri Vaishnava are just as unwelcome as a Shaiva or anyone else for the simple reason that you do not agree with them on everything as evident by beggar challenging your presence here for not accepting Gaudiya scripture as authority.

 

Cheers

 

Shvu,

Haribol!

 

I do not want to take away from the main topic of this forum, but it does say 'Vaishnava' and not 'Gaudiya Vaishnava' so any Vaishnavite is welcome to give his or her respective answer to the question.

 

Being a practitioner of Gaudiya Vaishnavism myself, I do realise that not all Vaishnavites will accept Upadeshamrita, Chaitanya-Charitamrita, Bhakti-rasamrita-sindu, Hari-bhakti-vilasa, Brahma-samhita, and other Gaudiya Scriptures. Furthermore, I still accept all Vaishnavites as my brothers and sisters in God, whether Sri, Pushtimargi, Nimbarki, or Gaudiya.

 

As a Gaudiya, I accept and am aware of the other branches of Vaishnavism.

 

Radhe Shyam.

[gHari]

Maybe someone has already mentioned this here, but an offense to a vaisnava is an offense to Sri Krsna. Therefore the vaisnava will be angered, but not because it's an ego maintenance issue.

 

Aparadha means distancing oneself from Radha. She does not like it when someone exhibits a poor attitude towards Krsna or Her servants' servants who are engaged in Her plans to please Him. She turns Her back and walks away. Even the demigods will react, plummeting offenders into the beastly regions of material existence.

 

So one should not think that aparadha does not exist - for in essence, only aparadha and its antithesis, bhakti exist.

 

Like it's just bad karma, dude.

[AncientMariner]

 

Maybe someone has already mentioned this here, but an offense to a vaisnava is an offense to Sri Krsna. Therefore the vaisnava will be angered, but not because it's an ego maintenance issue.

 

Aparadha means distancing oneself from Radha. She does not like it when someone exhibits a poor attitude towards Krsna or Her servants' servants who are engaged in Her plans to please Him. She turns Her back and walks away. Even the demigods will react, plummeting offenders into the beastly regions of material existence.

 

So one should not think that aparadha does not exist - for in essence, only aparadha and its antithesis, bhakti exist.

 

 

Like it's just bad karma, dude.

 

How do you explain the phenomena when someone takes offense when no offense was intended. I especially liked that part of Red Sox fans friends response where if someone is offended when no offense was meant it is their problem at that point. I tend to agree that aparadha exists but how do you determine which group of devotees are the authority on aparadha and who determines who is committing aparadha and who isn't. Is it done by popular vote? In that sense I think matasrivan has a decent point in the following statement:

 

 

 

"Aparadha is a social concept applicable to competing religious factions in Indian society like the Pashupatas shaktas vaishnavas and shaivas. They were always fighting each other about authenticity and competing for royal patronage. A King inclined towards shaivas would not be interested in supporting vaishnava mathas and they would fall into decline.

 

It was common to scare others using threats of aparadha."

[gHari]

 

How do you explain the phenomena when someone takes offense when no offense was intended. I especially liked that part of Red Sox fans friends response where if someone is offended when no offense was meant it is their problem at that point. I tend to agree that aparadha exists but how do you determine which group of devotees are the authority on aparadha and who determines who is committing aparadha and who isn't. Is it done by popular vote?

Of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they say. But surely there are degrees of karmas that will need to be administered to correct the faulty heart, and sometimes the fault is not even known by us. But it's just like anything: we put our hand in a flame - it hurts, but that's a good thing; otherwise we'd leave it there. We didn't know it was wrong, but we still got burned anyway.

 

As far as who is the authority, ultimately it is Sri Krsna - even if the pain from the flame is caused by His appointed demigod administrator.

 

Then there is the scenario when you say "Howdy" to someone and they think you're putting them down - some kind of cowboy slur or something! I don't think the Vedas cover them folks; unless it's one of those thorazine tamo guna issues. Maybe I'll learn to keep my big fat mouth shut ... but we all doubt that.

[AncientMariner]

 

Of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they say. But surely there are degrees of karmas that will need to be administered to correct the faulty heart, and sometimes the fault is not even known by us. But it's just like anything: we put our hand in a flame - it hurts, but that's a good thing; otherwise we'd leave it there. We didn't know it was wrong, but we still got burned anyway.

 

As far as who is the authority, ultimately it is Sri Krsna - even if the pain from the flame is caused by His appointed demigod administrator.

 

Then there is the scenario when you say "Howdy" to someone and they think you're putting them down - some kind of cowboy slur or something! I don't think the Vedas cover them folks; unless it's one of those thorazine tamo guna issues. Maybe I'll learn to keep my big fat mouth shut ... but we all doubt that.

 

Nah I enjoy reading your posts. You are an inspiration to all of us spiritual seekers.

[Redsox]

 

Maybe someone has already mentioned this here, but an offense to a vaisnava is an offense to Sri Krsna.

 

Like it's just bad karma, dude.

 

Well, thanks for your answer, but krishna states in Bhagavad Gita that a living entity does not do anything and all is done by the interactions between the three modes of material nature. Also, He further says that He is the one who controls the material nature. Then, how is it so that He is offended by some interaction between the three modes when He is not under the control of it (He is the one who controls it, right?)? Can you please tell me how krishna can be offended?

[bhaktajan]

Redsox,

Your question is asked the wrong way around. All 'personal' qualities originate in the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Love, hate etc. spring forth from Krishna, from Krishna is the source of all rasas/mellow/tastes/interpersonal exchanges —not the other way around.

We jivas may experience our own Point-of-View(s) but our own absolute peace of mind requires us to reconcile our personal relationship with he who is: Paramesvara / Hrisikesa / suhrtam-sarva-bhutanam.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Some verse re: Krsna's anger:

SB 1.9.37—Fulfilling my desire and sacrificing His own promise, He got down from the chariot, took up its wheel, and ran towards me hurriedly, just as a lion goes to kill an elephant. He even dropped His outer garment on the way.

PURPORT

The <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comKrishna</st1:place>'s pastimes.

<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Battle</st1:place></st1:City> of Kurukñetra was fought on military principles but at the same time in a sporting spirit, like a friend’s fight with another friend. Duryodhana criticized Bhéñmadeva, alleging that he was reluctant to kill Arjuna because of paternal affection. A kñatriya cannot tolerate insults on the principle of fighting. Bhéñmadeva therefore promised that the next day he would kill all five Päëòavas with special weapons made for the purpose. Duryodhana was satisfied, and he kept the arrows with him to be delivered the next day during the fight. By tricks Arjuna took the arrows from Duryodhana, and Bhéñmadeva could understand that this was the trick of Lord Kåñëa. So he took a vow that the next day Kåñëa would have to take up weapons Himself, otherwise His friend Arjuna would die. In the next day’s fighting Bhéñmadeva fought so violently that both Arjuna and Kåñëa were in trouble. Arjuna was almost defeated; the situation was so tense that he was about to be killed by Bhéñmadeva the very next moment. At that time Lord Kåñëa wanted to please His devotee, Bhéñma, by keeping Bhéñma’s promise, which was more important than His own. Seemingly He broke His own promise. He promised before the beginning of the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Battle</st1:place></st1:City> of Kurukñetra that He would remain without weapons and would not use His strength for either of the parties. But to protect Arjuna He got down from the chariot, took up the wheel of the chariot and hurriedly rushed at Bhéñmadeva in an angry mood, as a lion goes to kill an elephant. He dropped His covering cloth on the way, and out of great anger He did not know that He had dropped it. Bhéñmadeva at once gave up his weapons and stood to be killed by Kåñëa, his beloved Lord. The fighting of the day was thus ended at that very moment, and Arjuna was saved. Of course there was no possibility of Arjuna’s death because the Lord Himself was on the chariot, but because Bhéñmadeva wanted to see Lord Kåñëa take up some weapon to save His friend, the Lord created this situation, making Arjuna’s death imminent. He stood before Bhéñmadeva to show him that his promise was fulfilled and that He had taken up the wheel.

SB 1.9.38—May He, Lord Çré Kåñëa, the Personality of Godhead, who awards salvation, be my ultimate destination. On the battlefield He charged me, as if angry because of the wounds dealt by my sharp arrows. His shield was scattered, and His body was smeared with blood due to the wounds.

PURPORT

The dealings of Lord Kåñëa and Bhéñmadeva on the Battlefield of Kurukñetra are interesting because the activities of Lord Çré Kåñëa appeared to be partial to Arjuna and at enmity with Bhéñmadeva; but factually all this was especially meant to show special favor to Bhéñmadeva, a great devotee of the Lord. The astounding feature of such dealings is that a devotee can please the Lord by playing the part of an enemy. The Lord, being absolute, can accept service from His pure devotee even in the garb of an enemy. The Supreme Lord cannot have any enemy, nor can a so-called enemy harm Him because He is ajita, or unconquerable. But still He takes pleasure when His pure devotee beats Him like an enemy or rebukes Him from a superior position, although no one can be superior to the Lord. These are some of the transcendental reciprocatory dealings of the devotee with the Lord. And those who have no information of pure devotional service cannot penetrate into the mystery of such dealings. Bhéñmadeva played the part of a valiant warrior, and he purposely pierced the body of the Lord so that to the common eyes it appeared that the Lord was wounded, but factually all this was to bewilder the nondevotees. The all-spiritual body cannot be wounded, and a devotee cannot become the enemy of the Lord. Had it been so, Bhéñmadeva would not have desired to have the very same Lord as the ultimate destination of his life. Had Bhéñmadeva been an enemy of the Lord, Lord Kåñëa could have annihilated him without even moving. There was no need to come before Bhéñmadeva with blood and wounds. But He did so because the warrior devotee wanted to see the transcendental beauty of the Lord decorated with wounds created by a pure devotee. This is the way of exchanging transcendental rasa, or relations between the Lord and the servitor. By such dealings both the Lord and the devotee become glorified in their respective positions. The Lord was so angry that Arjuna checked Him when He was moving towards Bhéñmadeva, but in spite of Arjuna’s checking, He proceeded towards Bhéñmadeva as a lover goes to a lover, without caring for hindrances. Apparently His determination was to kill Bhéñmadeva, but factually it was to please him as a great devotee of the Lord. The Lord is undoubtedly the deliverer of all conditioned souls. The impersonalists desire salvation from Him, and He always awards them according to their aspiration, but here Bhéñmadeva aspires to see the Lord in His personal feature. All pure devotees aspire for this.

SB 1.9.39 —At the moment of death, let my ultimate attraction be to Çré Kåñëa, the Personality of Godhead. I concentrate my mind upon the chariot driver of Arjuna who stood with a whip in His right hand and a bridle rope in His left, who was very careful to give protection to Arjuna’s chariot by all means. Those who saw Him on the Battlefield of Kurukñetra attained their original forms after death.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

CC Madhya 16.144 — “You should know that Lord Kåñëa Himself violated His own promise just to keep the promise of Grandfather Bhéñma.

CC Madhya 16.145 — “‘Intending to make my promise true, Lord Kåñëa broke His own promise not to take up a weapon at Kurukñetra. With His outer garment falling off, Lord Çré Kåñëa jumped from His chariot, picked up a wheel and came running at me to kill me. Indeed, He rushed at me like a lion going to kill an elephant, and He caused the whole earth to tremble.’

PURPORT

Lord Kåñëa promised not to fight in the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Battle</st1:place></st1:City> of Kurukñetra or even take up a weapon. But when Bhéñma wanted to keep his own promise to break the promise of the Lord, the Lord immediately got down from the chariot, and to make Bhéñma’s promise true He picked up a chariot wheel and rushed forward to kill him. This is a quotation from Çrémad-Bhägavatam (1.9.37).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

NOD 22 Qualities of Çré Krsna #39. Well-wisher of His Devotees

It is said of Kåñëa’s devotees that if they offer even a little water or a tulasé leaf in devotion to Lord Viñëu, Lord Viñëu is so kind that He will sell Himself to them.

Kåñëa’s favoritism toward His devotees was exhibited in His fight with Bhéñma. When Grandfather Bhéñma was lying at the point of death on the bed of arrows, Kåñëa was present before him, and Bhéñma was remembering how Kåñëa had been kind to him on the battlefield. Kåñëa had promised that in the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Battle</st1:place></st1:City> of Kurukñetra He would not even touch a weapon to help either side; He would remain neutral. Although Kåñëa was Arjuna’s charioteer, He had promised that He would not help Arjuna by using any weapons. But one day Bhéñma, in order to nullify Kåñëa’s promise, exhibited his fighting spirit so magnificently against Arjuna that Kåñëa was obliged to get down from His chariot. Taking up a broken chariot wheel, He ran toward Grandfather Bhéñma as a lion runs toward an elephant to kill it. Grandfather Bhéñma remembered this scene, and He later praised Kåñëa for His glorious favoritism toward His devotee, Arjuna, even at the risk of breaking His own promise.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

 

does this approch you questions?

Bhaktajan

[krishnaleela]

 

Well, thanks for your answer, but krishna states in Bhagavad Gita that a living entity does not do anything and all is done by the interactions between the three modes of material nature. Also, He further says that He is the one who controls the material nature. Then, how is it so that He is offended by some interaction between the three modes when He is not under the control of it (He is the one who controls it, right?)? Can you please tell me how krishna can be offended?

 

all krishnaleela my friend:-)

 

Krishna is never deluded and ever-aware of His play (or the play of prakrithi) ... but so long as we cannot spot Him, we will talk of offense and punishment for we have identified atma (or is that Krishna?) with the material-modes. Krishna can never be offended (ps. i don't really know Krishna:-) but if you play the part of Hiranyakasipu you know what happens next !! Call it punishment or Grace or just the fruits of actions.

[Beggar]

 

Well, thanks for your answer, but krishna states in Bhagavad Gita that a living entity does not do anything and all is done by the interactions between the three modes of material nature. Also, He further says that He is the one who controls the material nature. Then, how is it so that He is offended by some interaction between the three modes when He is not under the control of it (He is the one who controls it, right?)? Can you please tell me how krishna can be offended?

 

Here are all your answers. I suggest you read this then take a few hours and read the entire Introduction.

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/introduction/en

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, Introduction (part of)

 

The subject of the Bhagavad-gītā entails the comprehension of five basic truths. First of all, the science of God is explained and then the constitutional position of the living entities, jīvas. There is īśvara, which means the controller, and there are jīvas, the living entities which are controlled. If a living entity says that he is not controlled but that he is free, then he is insane. The living being is controlled in every respect, at least in his conditioned life. So in the Bhagavad-gītā the subject matter deals with the īśvara, the supreme controller, and the jīvas, the controlled living entities. Prakṛti (material nature) and time (the duration of existence of the whole universe or the manifestation of material nature) and karma (activity) are also discussed. The cosmic manifestation is full of different activities. All living entities are engaged in different activities. From Bhagavad-gītā we must learn what God is, what the living entities are, what prakṛti is, what the cosmic manifestation is, how it is controlled by time, and what the activities of the living entities are.Out of these five basic subject matters in Bhagavad-gītā it is established that the Supreme Godhead, or Kṛṣṇa, or Brahman, or the supreme controller, or Paramātmā — you may use whatever name you like — is the greatest of all. The living beings are in quality like the supreme controller. For instance, the Lord has control over the universal affairs of material nature, as will be explained in the later chapters of Bhagavad-gītā. Material nature is not independent. She is acting under the directions of the Supreme Lord. As Lord Kṛṣṇa says, mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram: "This material nature is working under My direction." When we see wonderful things happening in the cosmic nature, we should know that behind this cosmic manifestation there is a controller. Nothing could be manifested without being controlled. It is childish not to consider the controller. For instance, a child may think that an automobile is quite wonderful to be able to run without a horse or other animal pulling it, but a sane man knows the nature of the automobile's engineering arrangement. He always knows that behind the machinery there is a man, a driver. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the driver under whose direction everything is working. Now the jīvas, or the living entities, have been accepted by the Lord, as we will note in the later chapters, as His parts and parcels. A particle of gold is also gold, a drop of water from the ocean is also salty, and similarly we the living entities, being part and parcel of the supreme controller, īśvara, or Bhagavān, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, have all the qualities of the Supreme Lord in minute quantity because we are minute īśvaras, subordinate īśvaras. We are trying to control nature, as presently we are trying to control space or planets, and this tendency to control is there because it is in Kṛṣṇa. But although we have a tendency to lord it over material nature, we should know that we are not the supreme controller. This is explained in Bhagavad-gītā.

What is material nature? This is also explained in Gītā as inferior prakṛti, inferior nature. The living entity is explained as the superior prakṛti. Prakṛti is always under control, whether inferior or superior. Prakṛti is female, and she is controlled by the Lord just as the activities of a wife are controlled by the husband. Prakṛti is always subordinate, predominated by the Lord, who is the predominator. The living entities and material nature are both predominated, controlled by the Supreme Lord. According to the Gītā, the living entities, although parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord, are to be considered prakṛti. This is clearly mentioned in the Seventh Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā. Apareyam itas tv anyāḿ prakṛtiḿ viddhi me parām/ jīva-bhūtām: "This material nature is My inferior prakṛti, but beyond this is another prakṛti — jīva-bhūtām, the living entity."

Material nature itself is constituted by three qualities: the mode of goodness, the mode of passion and the mode of ignorance. Above these modes there is eternal time, and by a combination of these modes of nature and under the control and purview of eternal time there are activities, which are called karma. These activities are being carried out from time immemorial, and we are suffering or enjoying the fruits of our activities. For instance, suppose I am a businessman and have worked very hard with intelligence and have amassed a great bank balance. Then I am an enjoyer. But then say I have lost all my money in business; then I am a sufferer. Similarly, in every field of life we enjoy the results of our work, or we suffer the results. This is called karma.

Īśvara (the Supreme Lord), jīva (the living entity), prakṛti (nature), kāla (eternal time) and karma (activity) are all explained in the Bhagavad-gītā. Out of these five, the Lord, the living entities, material nature and time are eternal. The manifestation of prakṛti may be temporary, but it is not false. Some philosophers say that the manifestation of material nature is false, but according to the philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā or according to the philosophy of the Vaiṣṇavas, this is not so. The manifestation of the world is not accepted as false; it is accepted as real, but temporary. It is likened unto a cloud which moves across the sky, or the coming of the rainy season, which nourishes grains. As soon as the rainy season is over and as soon as the cloud goes away, all the crops which were nourished by the rain dry up. Similarly, this material manifestation takes place at a certain interval, stays for a while and then disappears. Such are the workings of prakṛti. But this cycle is working eternally. Therefore prakṛti is eternal; it is not false. The Lord refers to this as "My prakṛti." This material nature is the separated energy of the Supreme Lord, and similarly the living entities are also the energy of the Supreme Lord, although they are not separated but eternally related. So the Lord, the living entity, material nature and time are all interrelated and are all eternal. However, the other item, karma, is not eternal. The effects of karma may be very old indeed. We are suffering or enjoying the results of our activities from time immemorial, but we can change the results of our karma, or our activity, and this change depends on the perfection of our knowledge. We are engaged in various activities. Undoubtedly we do not know what sort of activities we should adopt to gain relief from the actions and reactions of all these activities, but this is also explained in the Bhagavad-gītā.