Kali yuga

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

This was quoted in another thread.

 

 

 

Our spiritual master has said that India is suffering because of the on set of Kali yuga. That started with the first fallen brahamna Srigi(?) He cursed the faltless emperor. Then down hill from there, that would include loss of a society based on guna and karma, sanatana dharma. Thereby opening the door to retribution from foreign invaders.

 

 

This is a ridiculous statement to put it mildly, even though I must agree brahman’s son was over the top to curse the unknown person who had actually insulted his father by putting a dead snake on his neck.

 

Kali had already made his mark when The king saw him beating the cow, so why the blame on Brahmana?

 

The blame goes squarely on Pariksit Maharaj for letting the Kali free, instead he allowed him few places to reside and one of them was gold.

 

Would he have insulted the Brahman who was in meditation the way he did, if not for the influence of kali residing in his crown jewel?

 

He realised this mistake as soon as he took his mukat off, by then it was all too late

.

History will tell us many reasons for the brutal invaders to succeed, even after repeated defeats and I think one of the reason was the influence of Jain and Buddhist ahimsa that allowed the invaders eventually to take hold.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

And again by

 

 

More evidence that caste by birth people are incompetent.

 

1. Real brahamana's wouldn't have allowed Muslim kings to sit on the throne, but they did.

 

2. Real kshatriya's (leaders), who were trained by brahamana's, wouldn't have allowed foreignors to take over.

 

So would you say Brihaspati rishi was incompetent for allowing defeat of devas and let asuras rule the heaven. Answer yes or no, your evidence is very watertight.

 

 

 

3. Those countless Indian wars happened because fake brahamanas were the head of society, and if the head of society is weak so is the rest of the civilization.

 

Can we take it from this, using the same yardstick the countless fall down in Iskcon of so called Sanyasi never mind the average Joe, to be attributed to the leader?

 

Perhaps you can list some of the countless war that might have happened because of Brahmans at the head of society, or are you just stating this of your own whim.

 

Funny how the British found us before they ruled us even that under Muslim period and I quote, for your unbiased appraisal.

 

 

It was February 1835, a time when the British were striving to take control of the whole of India. Lord Macaulay, a historian and a politician, made a historical speech in the British Parliament, commonly referred to as The Minutes, which struck a blow at the centuries old system of Indian education.

His words were to this effect: I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

Note; all this under the occupation of brutal regime whose sole goal was to destroy our Dharma.

I fill utterly repugnant by these so called followers of sanatan dharma, who are always eager to heap insult to our ancestors, who gave their blood, and under all odds kept the Dharma alive.

These guys have no shame, take our money by false pretence and through it back in our face. Dharma is under threat and this time from those who are masquerading as devotees, those who want to justify, under the guise of following Vedic dharma, things like guy marriages, making money by deception, sanyasis adopting life style more suited to CEO of big corporate,

Selling Vedic knowledge to maintain those life style.

That is not to say there are no pious followers out there but would they insult us like some of you have?

Jai Shree Krishna

[kaisersose]

Ganesh,

 

Best to say away from these topics. They are simply posting nonsense on how India went "downhill" because of Kali yuga and bad Brahmins.

 

This is the first time I am seeing the view of how Kali yuga is bad ony for India and Brahmins being held responsible for foreign rule! Each day brings out more & more nonsense on this forum.

 

Now if they can present facts (which has not happened) then we can respond back. Otherwise, we can do better than to trade opinions. Iskcon or nor, the fact remains that the west still sees India as a failed third world country. And movies like slumdog millionaire are just reaffirming the fact that people have a hard time moving away from stereotypes.

 

Cheers

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam kaisersose

 

I wish I could, but hey if they keep up like this it want be long before they self destruct. They are doing a fine job tearing each other apart.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[AncientMariner]

 

Pranam

 

And again by

 

 

 

So would you say Brihaspati rishi was incompetent for allowing defeat of devas and let asuras rule the heaven. Answer yes or no, your evidence is very watertight.

 

 

 

 

Can we take it from this, using the same yardstick the countless fall down in Iskcon of so called Sanyasi never mind the average Joe, to be attributed to the leader?

 

Perhaps you can list some of the countless war that might have happened because of Brahmans at the head of society, or are you just stating this of your own whim.

 

Funny how the British found us before they ruled us even that under Muslim period and I quote, for your unbiased appraisal.

 

 

It was February 1835, a time when the British were striving to take control of the whole of India. Lord Macaulay, a historian and a politician, made a historical speech in the British Parliament, commonly referred to as The Minutes, which struck a blow at the centuries old system of Indian education.

His words were to this effect: I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

Note; all this under the occupation of brutal regime whose sole goal was to destroy our Dharma.

I fill utterly repugnant by these so called followers of sanatan dharma, who are always eager to heap insult to our ancestors, who gave their blood, and under all odds kept the Dharma alive.

These guys have no shame, take our money by false pretence and through it back in our face. Dharma is under threat and this time from those who are masquerading as devotees, those who want to justify, under the guise of following Vedic dharma, things like guy marriages, making money by deception, sanyasis adopting life style more suited to CEO of big corporate,

Selling Vedic knowledge to maintain those life style.

That is not to say there are no pious followers out there but would they insult us like some of you have?

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

I definetly have sympathy for your view because the Brits and Rockefeller, Rothschild bankers are experts at breaking nations and cultures apart and they are currently trying to bring down the whole world and set up a world government where essentially every nation and person will be under a cashless computerized monetary system possibly even involving microschiping people. They want complete control and they will attempt to regulate the lives of virtually everyone.

 

 

I can't speak to the condition of the brahmins in India because I have no experience or knowledge but these banking cartels are good at getting people to sell out their own countrymen for riches so I wouldn't be surprised if there were some judas goats in India so to speak.

[andy108]

Srngi's influence continues to be evident.

 

SRNGI'S FOLLY

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam : Canto 1:"Creation" : SB 1.18: Maharaja Pariksit Cursed by a Brahmana Boy :

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

SB 1.18.32 : The sage had a son who was very powerful, being a brāhmaṇa's son. While he was playing with inexperienced boys, he heard of his father's distress, which was occasioned by the King. Then and there the boy spoke as follows.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT :

Due to Mahārāja Parīkṣit's good government, even a boy of tender age, who was playing with other inexperienced boys, could become as powerful as a qualified brāhmaṇa. This boy was known as Śṛṅgi, and he achieved good training in brahmacarya by his father so that he could be as powerful as a brāhmaṇa, even at that age. But because the age of Kali was seeking an opportunity to spoil the cultural heritage of the four orders of life, the inexperienced boy gave a chance for the age of Kali to enter into the field of Vedic culture. Hatred of the lower orders of life began from this brāhmaṇa boy, under the influence of Kali, and thus cultural life began to dwindle day after day. The first victim of brahminical injustice was Mahārāja Parīkṣit, and thus the protection given by the King against the onslaught of Kali was slackened.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.33 The brāhmaṇa's son, Śṛṅgi, said:] O just look at the sins of the rulers who, like crows and watchdogs at the door, perpetrate sins against their masters, contrary to the principles governing servants.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Purport: The brāhmaṇas are considered to be the head and brains of the social body, and the kṣatriyas are considered to be the arms of the social body. The arms are required to protect the body from all harm, but the arms must act according to the directions of the head and brain. That is a natural arrangement made by the supreme order, for it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā that four social orders or castes, namely the brāhmaṇas, the kṣatriyas, the vaiśyas and the śūdras, are set up according to quality and work done by them. Naturally the son of a brāhmaṇa has a good chance to become a brāhmaṇa by the direction of his qualified father, as a son of a medical practitioner has a very good chance to become a qualified medical practitioner. So the caste system is quite scientific. The son must take advantage of the father's qualification and thus become a brāhmaṇa or medical practitioner, and not otherwise. Without being qualified, one cannot become a brāhmaṇa or medical practitioner, and that is the verdict of all scriptures and social orders. Herein Śṛṅgi, a qualified son of a great brāhmaṇa, attained the required brahminical power both by birth and by training, but he was lacking in culture because he was an inexperienced boy. By the influence of Kali, the son of a brāhmaṇa became puffed up with brahminical power and thus wrongly compared Mahārāja Parīkṣit to crows and watchdogs. The King is certainly the watchdog of the state in the sense that he keeps vigilant eyes over the border of the state for its protection and defense, but to address him as a watchdog is the sign of a less-cultured boy. Thus the downfall of the brahminical powers began as they gave importance to birthright without culture. The downfall of the brāhmaṇa caste began in the age of Kali. And since brāhmaṇas are the heads of the social order, all other orders of society also began to deteriorate. This beginning of brahminical deterioration was highly deplored by the father of Śṛṅgi, as we will find.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.34 The descendants of the kingly orders are definitely designated as watchdogs, and they must keep themselves at the door. On what grounds can dogs enter the house and claim to dine with the master on the same plate?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Purport: The inexperienced brāhmaṇa boy certainly knew that the King asked for water from his father and the father did not respond. He tried to explain away his father's inhospitality in an impertinent manner befitting an uncultured boy. He was not at all sorry for the King's not being well received. On the contrary, he justified the wrong act in a way characteristic of the brāhmaṇas of Kali-yuga. He compared the King to a watchdog, and so it was wrong for the King to enter the home of a brāhmaṇa and ask for water from the same pot. The dog is certainly reared by its master, but that does not mean that the dog shall claim to dine and drink from the same pot. This mentality of false prestige is the cause of downfall of the perfect social order, and we can see that in the beginning it was started by the inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa. As the dog is never allowed to enter within the room and hearth, although it is reared by the master, similarly, according to Śṛṅgi, the King had no right to enter the house of Śamīka Ṛṣi. According to the boy's opinion, the King was on the wrong side and not his father, and thus he justified his silent father.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.35 After the departure of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Personality of Godhead and supreme ruler of everyone, these upstarts have flourished, our protector being gone. Therefore I myself shall take up this matter and punish them. Just witness my power.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT

The inexperienced brāhmaṇa, puffed up by a little brahma-tejas, became influenced by the spell of Kali-yuga. Mahārāja Parīkṣit gave license to Kali to live in four places as mentioned hereinbefore, but by his very expert government the personality of Kali could hardly find the places allotted him. The personality of Kali-yuga, therefore, was seeking the opportunity to establish authority, and by the grace of the Lord he found a hole in the puffed-up, inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa. The little brāhmaṇa wanted to show his prowess in destruction, and he had the audacity to punish such a great king as Mahārāja Parīkṣit. He wanted to take the place of Lord Kṛṣṇa after His departure. These are the principal signs of upstarts who want to take the place of Śrī Kṛṣṇa under the influence of the age of Kali. An upstart with a little power wants to become an incarnation of the Lord. There are many false incarnations after the departure of Lord Kṛṣṇa from the face of the globe, and they are misleading the innocent public by accepting the spiritual obedience of the general mass of people to maintain false prestige. In other words, the personality of Kali got the opportunity to reign through this son of a brāhmaṇa, Śṛṅgi.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.36 : The son of the rsi, his eyes red-hot with anger, touched the water of the River Kauśika while speaking to his playmates and discharged the following thunderbolt of words.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Purport: The circumstances under which Mahārāja Parīkṣit was cursed were simply childish, as it appears from this verse. Śṛṅgi was showing his impudency amongst his playmates, who were innocent. Any sane man would have prevented him from doing such great harm to all human society. By killing a king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit, just to make a show of acquired brahminical power, the inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa committed a great mistake.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.37 :The brāhmaṇa's son cursed the King thus: On the seventh day from today a snake-bird will bite the most wretched one of that dynasty [Mahārāja Parīkṣit] because of his having broken the laws of etiquette by insulting my father.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Puport: Thus the beginning of the misuse of brahminical power began, and gradually the brāhmaṇas in the age of Kali became devoid of both brahminical powers and culture. The brāhmaṇa boy considered Mahārāja Parīkṣit to be kulāṅgāra, or the wretched of the dynasty, but factually the brāhmaṇa boy himself was so because only from him did the brāhmaṇa caste become powerless, like the snake whose poisoned teeth are broken. The snake is fearful as long as his poison teeth are there, otherwise he is fearful only to children. The personality of Kali conquered the brāhmaṇa boy first, and gradually the other castes. Thus the whole scientific system of the orders of society in this age has assumed the form of a vitiated caste system, which is now being uprooted by another class of men similarly influenced by the age of Kali. One should see to the root cause of vitiation and not try to condemn the system as it is, without knowledge of its scientific value.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.38 : Thereafter, when the boy returned to the hermitage, he saw a snake on his father's shoulder, and out of his grief he cried very loudly.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT

The boy was not happy because he committed a great mistake, and he wanted to be relieved of the burden on his heart by crying. So after entering the hermitage and seeing his father in that condition, he cried loudly so that he might be relieved. But it was too late. The father regretted the whole incident.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.39: O brāhmaṇas, the rsi, who was born in the family of Aṅgirā Muni, hearing his son crying, gradually opened his eyes and saw the dead snake around his neck.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.40 : He threw the dead snake aside and asked his son why he was crying, whether anyone had done him harm. On hearing this, the son explained to him what had happened.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT : The father did not take the dead snake on his neck very seriously. He simply threw it away. Actually there was nothing seriously wrong in Mahārāja Parīkṣit's act, but the foolish son took it very seriously, and being influenced by Kali he cursed the King and thus ended a chapter of happy history.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.41 : The father heard from his son that the King had been cursed, although he should never have been condemned, for he was the best amongst all human beings. The ṛṣi did not congratulate his son, but, on the contrary, began to repent, saying: Alas! What a great sinful act was performed by my son. He has awarded heavy punishment for an insignificant offense.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT :The king is the best of all human beings. He is the representative of God, and he is never to be condemned for any of his actions. In other words, the king can do no wrong. The king may order hanging of a culprit son of a brāhmaṇa, but he does not become sinful for killing a brāhmaṇa. Even if there is something wrong with the king, he is never to be condemned. A medical practitioner may kill a patient by mistaken treatment, but such a killer is never condemned to death. So what to speak of a good and pious king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit? In the Vedic way of life, the king is trained to become a rājarṣi, or a great saint, although he is ruling as king. It is the king only by whose good government the citizens can live peacefully and without any fear. The rājarṣis would manage their kingdoms so nicely and piously that their subjects would respect them as if they were the Lord. That is the instruction of the Vedas. The king is called narendra, or the best amongst the human beings. How then could a king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit be condemned by an inexperienced, puffed-up son of a brahmaṇa, even though he had attained the powers of a qualified brāhmaṇa?

Since Śamīka Ṛṣi was an experienced, good brāhmaṇa, he did not approve of the actions of his condemned son. He began to lament for all that his son had done. The king was beyond the jurisdiction of curses as a general rule, and what to speak of a good king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. The offense of the King was most insignificant, and his being condemned to death was certainly a very great sin for Śṛṅgi. Therefore Ṛṣi Śamīka regretted the whole incident.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

[Kyros]

 

So would you say Brihaspati rishi was incompetent for allowing defeat of devas and let asuras rule the heaven. Answer yes or no, your evidence is very watertight.

The only asuras that were able to "rule" heaven were those blessed Lord Brahma and/or Lord Shiva.

 

Brhaspati rishi, while competent, isn't powerful enough to stand against demons blessed by Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva.

 

Especially Lord Shiva.

 

As far as I know, the Brits and Muslims weren't blessed by any demigod, for obvious reasons, yet they were still able to take over India.

 

I'll leave it at that...

 

 

Can we take it from this, using the same yardstick the countless fall down in Iskcon of so called Sanyasi never mind the average Joe, to be attributed to the leader?

I'm assuming you want to put the blame on Srila Prabhupada, right? Sorry, but that belongs to the GBC, which were incomplete in their training.

 

The very next thing Prabhupada was going to teach was varnashrama, but he passed away before he could do anything with that.

 

 

Perhaps you can list some of the countless war that might have happened because of Brahmans at the head of society, or are you just stating this of your own whim.

The vedic scriptures are littered with wars when the brahamanas at the head of society, but that's not my point.

 

I'm talking about the ridiculously easy takeover by foreigners.

 

 

Funny how the British found us before they ruled us even that under Muslim period and I quote, for your unbiased appraisal.

 

It was February 1835, a time when the British were striving to take control of the whole of India. Lord Macaulay, a historian and a politician, made a historical speech in the British Parliament, commonly referred to as The Minutes, which struck a blow at the centuries old system of Indian education.

His words were to this effect: I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

Note; all this under the occupation of brutal regime whose sole goal was to destroy our Dharma.

I fill utterly repugnant by these so called followers of sanatan dharma, who are always eager to heap insult to our ancestors, who gave their blood, and under all odds kept the Dharma alive.

These guys have no shame, take our money by false pretence and through it back in our face. Dharma is under threat and this time from those who are masquerading as devotees, those who want to justify, under the guise of following Vedic dharma, things like guy marriages, making money by deception, sanyasis adopting life style more suited to CEO of big corporate,

Selling Vedic knowledge to maintain those life style.

That is not to say there are no pious followers out there but would they insult us like some of you have?

Jai Shree Krishna

Hence why I said "fake" brahmanas. It is clearly stated in what you quoted that they could not have conquered us unless they broke our very own culture, and how else to do this than to manipulate incompetent (fake) brahmanas?

 

They used our own culture against us. This is what happens with the caste by birth concept.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Srngi's influence continues to be evident.

 

 

 

What evidence, opinions and purport does not prove anything especially when it is so biased. As we learn from Bhagvat, kali appeared as soon as Lord Krishna left the earth.

 

King Pariksit failed to deal with him instead allowed him four places to reside as well as in gold, which proved to be fatal, kali took resident in his gold Mukat, Kali did his job and Pariksit Maharaj acted in a way not fit for a King which he later regrated as thus;

 

Sri Suta Gosvāmī said: While returning home, the King [Maharaj Pariksit] felt that the act he had committed against the faultless and powerful Brahmana was heinous and uncivilized. Consequently he was distressed. SB1.19.1:

 

Pariksit Maharaj who is always protected by Lord Vishnu, but he accepted his fate happily upon hearing the brahmanas curse, he went on the banks of Mother Ganga ready to die.

 

We may argue thus that the curse actually became blessing in disguise as Pariksit Maharaj received nectar from a Brahmana Sukdev Goswami, in the form of Bhagvat katha. Since then the Bhagvat has become a source of inspiration for millions.

 

It would be foolish for me to conclude that the Bhagvat puran is a result of brahmanas curse or the kalis appearance as a result of it, since both were present before the event.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

The only asuras that were able to "rule" heaven were those blessed Lord Brahma and/or Lord Shiva.

 

Brhaspati rishi, while competent, isn't powerful enough to stand against demons blessed by Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva.

 

Especially Lord Shiva.

 

You want to check your facts before you make such ridiculous statement neither Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva had anything to do with it, it was the result of Brahman Sukrachariya descendant of Brighu Muni, siding with asura, funny how a brahmana siding with asura can still be called Brahman!

 

 

As far as I know, the Brits and Muslims weren't blessed by any demigod, for obvious reasons, yet they were still able to take over India.

 

I'll leave it at that…

 

Neither was Bali Maharaj so your point is mute.

 

Muslims were brutal, they were repulsed many times, each time they were spared instead of giving appropriate punishment they were freed to come back and fight another day. There is a lesson to learn here just as Pariksit Maharaj let the kali free this kings did the same with Muslims.

 

Each time Brahmana gets the blame, you are really something, instead of giving praise to them for keeping and maintaining the Dharama against all the odds you are insulting them. You should read up on history how brutal the Muslims were.

 

Yet when Brits came they were astounded by the piety and culture of India. And only way they broke the backbone of Bharat was by spreading false propagandas about our Dharma and Brahmana in particular and sad part is you are still taking that bait to malign us.

 

Just think is there one country out there where Muslims or British ruled and survived their region intact?

 

 

 

I'm assuming you want to put the blame on Srila Prabhupada, right? Sorry, but that belongs to the GBC, which were incomplete in their training.

 

The very next thing Prabhupada was going to teach was varnashrama, but he passed away before he could do anything with that.

 

I leave that for you to decide, you guys are very good at apportioning blame twisting all logical reasoning, I was only using your yard stick.

 

 

 

The vedic scriptures are littered with wars when the brahamanas at the head of society, but that's not my point.

 

You are right our scripture are littered with wars, there always been struggle with forces of evil against the good. Some of us prefer to concentrate on dharma, you are welcome to blame the brahmanas without any evidence, and believe the propaganda spread by the British.

 

 

 

I'm talking about the ridiculously easy takeover by foreigners.

Hence why I said "fake" brahmanas. It is clearly stated in what you quoted that they could not have conquered us unless they broke our very own culture, and how else to do this than to manipulate incompetent (fake) brahmanas?

 

They used our own culture against us. This is what happens with the caste by birth concept.

 

 

It never would have been possible but for people like you believing those lies spread by Brits, they attacked the very fabric of our society, the varna system, and people like you fell for it. If varna system was so bad why do you think your guru wanted to establish it, but failed.

First think the culture would not have existed if the brahmanas were fake.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[andy108]

 

Pranam

 

What evidence, opinions and purport does not prove anything especially when it is so biased. As we learn from Bhagvat, kali appeared as soon as Lord Krishna left the earth.

 

King Pariksit failed to deal with him instead allowed him four places to reside as well as in gold, which proved to be fatal, kali took resident in his gold Mukat, Kali did his job and Pariksit Maharaj acted in a way not fit for a King which he later regrated as thus;

 

Sri Suta Gosvāmī said: While returning home, the King [Maharaj Pariksit] felt that the act he had committed against the faultless and powerful Brahmana was heinous and uncivilized. Consequently he was distressed. SB1.19.1:

 

Pariksit Maharaj who is always protected by Lord Vishnu, but he accepted his fate happily upon hearing the brahmanas curse, he went on the banks of Mother Ganga ready to die.

 

We may argue thus that the curse actually became blessing in disguise as Pariksit Maharaj received nectar from a Brahmana Sukdev Goswami, in the form of Bhagvat katha. Since then the Bhagvat has become a source of inspiration for millions.

 

It would be foolish for me to conclude that the Bhagvat puran is a result of brahmanas curse or the kalis appearance as a result of it, since both were present before the event.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

There are many valid angles of vision as to the why when how and what for of Kali-Yuga.

 

The philosophy of Shree Krishna is Acintya BedhaAbheda tattva. Inconceivable Simultaneous Oneness and Difference.

 

So there is no argument needed to put forth the observation that the curse of Srngi was a blessing in disguise for Maharaja Pariksit. For this is the truth and how the Lord purifies his devotees. Yet simultaneously Srngi made an offensive blunder as part of his own Purification and spiritual growth process.

 

But your claim that Maharaja Pariksit "failed" in any way must be seen in the same light.

 

This can be seen by a deeper analysis of Maharaja Pariksit's treatment of Kali, who surrendered to him. Thus setting up the scenario for Kali Yuga, a Yuga in which Krsna decends with his big brother as Sri Sri Gaura Nitai and displays his infinite magnanimity in saving the most fallen and offering them everything. And setting up their pure servant, Srila Bhatkivedanta Swami Prabhupada to give instructions on how we can finally actually counteract Kali Yuga, something which the so-called Vedicans in India have obviously failed at up til today.

 

His instructions are explicit within his purports to the very story of King Pariksit and his meeting with Kali.

 

 

SB 1.17.30

Mahārāja Parīkṣit, who was qualified to accept surrender and worthy of being sung in history, did not kill the poor surrendered and fallen Kali, but smiled compassionately, for he was kind to the poor.

PURPORT

Even an ordinary kṣatriya does not kill a surrendered person, and what to speak of Mahārāja Parīkṣit, who was by nature compassionate and kind to the poor. He was smiling because the artificially dressed Kali had disclosed his identity as a lower-class man, and he was thinking how ironic it was that although no one was saved from his sharp sword when he desired to kill, the poor lower-class Kali was spared by his timely surrender. Mahārāja Parīkṣit's glory and kindness are therefore sung in history. He was a kind and compassionate emperor, fully worthy of accepting surrender even from his enemy. Thus the personality of Kali was saved by the will of Providence.

 

 

SB 1.17.31

The King thus said: We have inherited the fame of Arjuna; therefore since you have surrendered yourself with folded hands you need not fear for your life. But you cannot remain in my kingdom, for you are the friend of irreligion.

 

32. If the personality of Kali, irreligion, is allowed to act as a man-god or an executive head, certainly irreligious principles like greed, falsehood, robbery, incivility, treachery, misfortune, cheating, quarrel and vanity will abound.

 

33. Therefore, O friend of irreligion, you do not deserve to remain in a place where experts perform sacrifices according to truth and religious principles for the satisfaction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

35 . Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī said: The personality of Kali, thus being ordered by Mahārāja Parīkṣit, began to tremble in fear. Seeing the King before him like Yamarāja, ready to Kill him, Kali spoke to the King as follows.

 

36. O Your Majesty, though I may live anywhere and everywhere under your order, I shall but see you with bow and arrows wherever I look.

 

 

PURPORT

The personality of Kali could see that Mahārāja Parīkṣit was the emperor of all lands all over the world, and thus anywhere he might live he would have to meet with the same mood of the King. The personality of Kali was meant for mischief, and Mahārāja Parīkṣit was meant for subduing all kinds of mischief-mongers, especially the personality of Kali. It was better, therefore, for the personality of Kali to have been killed by the King then and there instead of being killed elsewhere. He was, after all, a surrendered soul before the King, and it was for the King to do what was required.

 

 

 

37. Therefore, O chief amongst the protectors of religion, please fix some place for me where I can live permanently under the protection of your government.

 

PURPORT

The personality of Kali addressed Mahārāja Parīkṣit as the chief amongst the protectors of religiosity because the King refrained from killing a person who surrendered unto him. A surrendered soul should be given all protection, even though he may be an enemy. That is the principle of religion. And we can just imagine what sort of protection is given by the Personality of Godhead to the person who surrenders unto Him, not as an enemy but as a devoted servitor. The Lord protects the surrendered soul from all sins and all resultant reactions of sinful act.

38. Sūta Gosvāmī said: Mahārāja Parīkṣit, thus being petitioned by the personality of Kali, gave him permission to reside in places where gambling, drinking, prostitution and animal slaughter were performed.

PURPORT

The basic principles of irreligiosity, such as pride, prostitution, intoxication and falsehood, counteract the four principles of religion, namely austerity, cleanliness, mercy and truthfulness. The personality of Kali was given permission to live in four places particularly mentioned by the King, namely the place of gambling, the place of prostitution, the place of drinking and the place of animal slaughter....

 

...Following in the footsteps of Mahārāja Parīkṣit, it is the duty of all executive heads of states to see that the principles of religion, namely austerity, cleanliness, mercy and truthfulness, are established in the state, and that the principles of irreligion, namely pride, illicit female association or prostitution, intoxication and falsity, are checked by all means. And to make the best use of a bad bargain, the personality of Kali may be transferred to places of gambling, drinking, prostitution and slaughterhouses, if there are any places like that. Those who are addicted to these irreligious habits may be regulated by the injunctions of the scripture. In no circumstances should they be encouraged by any state. In other words, the state should categorically stop all sorts of gambling, drinking, prostitution and falsity. The state which wants to eradicate corruption by majority may introduce the principles of religion in the following manner:

1. Two compulsory fasting days in a month, if not more (austerity). Even from the economic point of view, such two fasting days in a month in the state will save tons of food, and the system will also act very favorably on the general health of the citizens.

2. There must be compulsory marriage of young boys and girls attaining twenty-four years of age and sixteen years of age respectively. There is no harm in coeducation in the schools and colleges, provided the boys and girls are duly married, and in case there is any intimate connection between a male and female student, they should be married properly without illicit relation. The divorce act is encouraging prostitution, and this should be abolished.

3. The citizens of the state must give in charity up to fifty percent of their income for the purpose of creating a spiritual atmosphere in the state or in human society, both individually and collectively. They should preach the principles of Bhāgavatam by (a) karma-yoga, or doing everything for the satisfaction of the Lord, (b) regular hearing of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from authorized persons or realized souls, © chanting of the glories of the Lord congregationally at home or at places of worship, (d) rendering all kinds of service to bhāgavatas engaged in preaching Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and (e) residing in a place where the atmosphere is saturated with God consciousness. If the state is regulated by the above process, naturally there will be God consciousness everywhere.

Gambling of all description, even speculative business enterprise, is considered to be degrading, and when gambling is encouraged in the state, there is a complete disappearance of truthfulness. Allowing young boys and girls to remain unmarried more than the above-mentioned ages and licensing animal slaughterhouses of all description should be at once prohibited. The flesh-eaters may be allowed to take flesh as mentioned in the scriptures, and not otherwise. Intoxication of all description-even smoking cigarettes, chewing tobacco or the drinking of tea-must be prohibited.

 

 

 

 

39. The personality of Kali asked for something more, and because of his begging, the King gave him permission to live where there is gold because wherever there is gold there is also falsity, intoxication, lust, envy and enmity.

 

 

PURPORT

Although Mahārāja Parīkṣit gave Kali permission to live in four places, it was very difficult for him to find the places because during the reign of Mahārāja Parīkṣit there were no such places. Therefore Kali asked the King to give him something practical which could be utilized for his nefarious purposes. Mahārāja Parīkṣit thus gave him permission to live in a place where there is gold, because wherever there is gold there are all the above-mentioned four things, and over and above them there is enmity also. So the personality of Kali became gold-standardized. According to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, gold encourages falsity, intoxication, prostitution, envy and enmity. Even a gold-standard exchange and currency is bad. Gold-standard currency is based on falsehood because the currency is not on a par with the reserved gold. The basic principle is falsity because currency notes are issued in value beyond that of the actual reserved gold. This artificial inflation of currency by the authorities encourages prostitution of the state economy. The price of commodities becomes artificially inflated because of bad money, or artificial currency notes. Bad money drives away good money. Instead of paper currency, actual gold coins should be used for exchange, and this will stop prostitution of gold. Gold ornaments for women may be allowed by control, not by quality, but by quantity. This will discourage lust, envy and enmity. When there is actual gold currency in the form of coins, the influence of gold in producing falsity, prostitution, etc., will automatically cease. There will be no need of an anticorruption ministry for another term of prostitution and falsity of purpose.

40. Thus the personality of Kali, by the directions of Mahārāja Parīkṣit, the son of Uttarā, was allowed to live in those five places.

 

 

PURPORT

Thus the age of Kali began with gold standardization, and therefore falsity, intoxication, animal slaughter and prostitution are rampant all over the world, and the saner section is eager to drive out corruption. The counteracting process is suggested above, and everyone can take advantage of this suggestion.

 

[melvin]

 

Srngi's influence continues to be evident.

 

SRNGI'S FOLLY

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam : Canto 1:"Creation" : SB 1.18: Maharaja Pariksit Cursed by a Brahmana Boy :

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><?xml:namespace prefix = o />

SB 1.18.32 : The sage had a son who was very powerful, being a brāhmaṇa's son. While he was playing with inexperienced boys, he heard of his father's distress, which was occasioned by the King. Then and there the boy spoke as follows.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT :

Due to Mahārāja Parīkṣit's good government, even a boy of tender age, who was playing with other inexperienced boys, could become as powerful as a qualified brāhmaṇa. This boy was known as Śṛṅgi, and he achieved good training in brahmacarya by his father so that he could be as powerful as a brāhmaṇa, even at that age. But because the age of Kali was seeking an opportunity to spoil the cultural heritage of the four orders of life, the inexperienced boy gave a chance for the age of Kali to enter into the field of Vedic culture. Hatred of the lower orders of life began from this brāhmaṇa boy, under the influence of Kali, and thus cultural life began to dwindle day after day. The first victim of brahminical injustice was Mahārāja Parīkṣit, and thus the protection given by the King against the onslaught of Kali was slackened.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.33 The brāhmaṇa's son, Śṛṅgi, said:] O just look at the sins of the rulers who, like crows and watchdogs at the door, perpetrate sins against their masters, contrary to the principles governing servants.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Purport: The brāhmaṇas are considered to be the head and brains of the social body, and the kṣatriyas are considered to be the arms of the social body. The arms are required to protect the body from all harm, but the arms must act according to the directions of the head and brain. That is a natural arrangement made by the supreme order, for it is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā that four social orders or castes, namely the brāhmaṇas, the kṣatriyas, the vaiśyas and the śūdras, are set up according to quality and work done by them. Naturally the son of a brāhmaṇa has a good chance to become a brāhmaṇa by the direction of his qualified father, as a son of a medical practitioner has a very good chance to become a qualified medical practitioner. So the caste system is quite scientific. The son must take advantage of the father's qualification and thus become a brāhmaṇa or medical practitioner, and not otherwise. Without being qualified, one cannot become a brāhmaṇa or medical practitioner, and that is the verdict of all scriptures and social orders. Herein Śṛṅgi, a qualified son of a great brāhmaṇa, attained the required brahminical power both by birth and by training, but he was lacking in culture because he was an inexperienced boy. By the influence of Kali, the son of a brāhmaṇa became puffed up with brahminical power and thus wrongly compared Mahārāja Parīkṣit to crows and watchdogs. The King is certainly the watchdog of the state in the sense that he keeps vigilant eyes over the border of the state for its protection and defense, but to address him as a watchdog is the sign of a less-cultured boy. Thus the downfall of the brahminical powers began as they gave importance to birthright without culture. The downfall of the brāhmaṇa caste began in the age of Kali. And since brāhmaṇas are the heads of the social order, all other orders of society also began to deteriorate. This beginning of brahminical deterioration was highly deplored by the father of Śṛṅgi, as we will find.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.34 The descendants of the kingly orders are definitely designated as watchdogs, and they must keep themselves at the door. On what grounds can dogs enter the house and claim to dine with the master on the same plate?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Purport: The inexperienced brāhmaṇa boy certainly knew that the King asked for water from his father and the father did not respond. He tried to explain away his father's inhospitality in an impertinent manner befitting an uncultured boy. He was not at all sorry for the King's not being well received. On the contrary, he justified the wrong act in a way characteristic of the brāhmaṇas of Kali-yuga. He compared the King to a watchdog, and so it was wrong for the King to enter the home of a brāhmaṇa and ask for water from the same pot. The dog is certainly reared by its master, but that does not mean that the dog shall claim to dine and drink from the same pot. This mentality of false prestige is the cause of downfall of the perfect social order, and we can see that in the beginning it was started by the inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa. As the dog is never allowed to enter within the room and hearth, although it is reared by the master, similarly, according to Śṛṅgi, the King had no right to enter the house of Śamīka Ṛṣi. According to the boy's opinion, the King was on the wrong side and not his father, and thus he justified his silent father.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.35 After the departure of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Personality of Godhead and supreme ruler of everyone, these upstarts have flourished, our protector being gone. Therefore I myself shall take up this matter and punish them. Just witness my power.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT

The inexperienced brāhmaṇa, puffed up by a little brahma-tejas, became influenced by the spell of Kali-yuga. Mahārāja Parīkṣit gave license to Kali to live in four places as mentioned hereinbefore, but by his very expert government the personality of Kali could hardly find the places allotted him. The personality of Kali-yuga, therefore, was seeking the opportunity to establish authority, and by the grace of the Lord he found a hole in the puffed-up, inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa. The little brāhmaṇa wanted to show his prowess in destruction, and he had the audacity to punish such a great king as Mahārāja Parīkṣit. He wanted to take the place of Lord Kṛṣṇa after His departure. These are the principal signs of upstarts who want to take the place of Śrī Kṛṣṇa under the influence of the age of Kali. An upstart with a little power wants to become an incarnation of the Lord. There are many false incarnations after the departure of Lord Kṛṣṇa from the face of the globe, and they are misleading the innocent public by accepting the spiritual obedience of the general mass of people to maintain false prestige. In other words, the personality of Kali got the opportunity to reign through this son of a brāhmaṇa, Śṛṅgi.

 

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.36 : The son of the rsi, his eyes red-hot with anger, touched the water of the River Kauśika while speaking to his playmates and discharged the following thunderbolt of words.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Purport: The circumstances under which Mahārāja Parīkṣit was cursed were simply childish, as it appears from this verse. Śṛṅgi was showing his impudency amongst his playmates, who were innocent. Any sane man would have prevented him from doing such great harm to all human society. By killing a king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit, just to make a show of acquired brahminical power, the inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa committed a great mistake.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.37 :The brāhmaṇa's son cursed the King thus: On the seventh day from today a snake-bird will bite the most wretched one of that dynasty [Mahārāja Parīkṣit] because of his having broken the laws of etiquette by insulting my father.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Puport: Thus the beginning of the misuse of brahminical power began, and gradually the brāhmaṇas in the age of Kali became devoid of both brahminical powers and culture. The brāhmaṇa boy considered Mahārāja Parīkṣit to be kulāṅgāra, or the wretched of the dynasty, but factually the brāhmaṇa boy himself was so because only from him did the brāhmaṇa caste become powerless, like the snake whose poisoned teeth are broken. The snake is fearful as long as his poison teeth are there, otherwise he is fearful only to children. The personality of Kali conquered the brāhmaṇa boy first, and gradually the other castes. Thus the whole scientific system of the orders of society in this age has assumed the form of a vitiated caste system, which is now being uprooted by another class of men similarly influenced by the age of Kali. One should see to the root cause of vitiation and not try to condemn the system as it is, without knowledge of its scientific value.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.38 : Thereafter, when the boy returned to the hermitage, he saw a snake on his father's shoulder, and out of his grief he cried very loudly.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT

The boy was not happy because he committed a great mistake, and he wanted to be relieved of the burden on his heart by crying. So after entering the hermitage and seeing his father in that condition, he cried loudly so that he might be relieved. But it was too late. The father regretted the whole incident.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.39: O brāhmaṇas, the rsi, who was born in the family of Aṅgirā Muni, hearing his son crying, gradually opened his eyes and saw the dead snake around his neck.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.40 : He threw the dead snake aside and asked his son why he was crying, whether anyone had done him harm. On hearing this, the son explained to him what had happened.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT : The father did not take the dead snake on his neck very seriously. He simply threw it away. Actually there was nothing seriously wrong in Mahārāja Parīkṣit's act, but the foolish son took it very seriously, and being influenced by Kali he cursed the King and thus ended a chapter of happy history.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

1.18.41 : The father heard from his son that the King had been cursed, although he should never have been condemned, for he was the best amongst all human beings. The ṛṣi did not congratulate his son, but, on the contrary, began to repent, saying: Alas! What a great sinful act was performed by my son. He has awarded heavy punishment for an insignificant offense.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

PURPORT :The king is the best of all human beings. He is the representative of God, and he is never to be condemned for any of his actions. In other words, the king can do no wrong. The king may order hanging of a culprit son of a brāhmaṇa, but he does not become sinful for killing a brāhmaṇa. Even if there is something wrong with the king, he is never to be condemned. A medical practitioner may kill a patient by mistaken treatment, but such a killer is never condemned to death. So what to speak of a good and pious king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit? In the Vedic way of life, the king is trained to become a rājarṣi, or a great saint, although he is ruling as king. It is the king only by whose good government the citizens can live peacefully and without any fear. The rājarṣis would manage their kingdoms so nicely and piously that their subjects would respect them as if they were the Lord. That is the instruction of the Vedas. The king is called narendra, or the best amongst the human beings. How then could a king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit be condemned by an inexperienced, puffed-up son of a brahmaṇa, even though he had attained the powers of a qualified brāhmaṇa?

Since Śamīka Ṛṣi was an experienced, good brāhmaṇa, he did not approve of the actions of his condemned son. He began to lament for all that his son had done. The king was beyond the jurisdiction of curses as a general rule, and what to speak of a good king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. The offense of the King was most insignificant, and his being condemned to death was certainly a very great sin for Śṛṅgi. Therefore Ṛṣi Śamīka regretted the whole incident.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

 

If Maharaja Pariksit was not cursed by Srngi, the King wouldn`t have fasted for seven days until death hearing Srimad Bhagavatam from Sukadeva Goswami. The curse was a blessing in disguise.

[AncientMariner]

I read that not a blade of grass moves without the sanction of Krishna but then they whole of Srimad Bhagavatam seems to be a pretty much predetermined cycle of events so I logically come to the conclusion that Krishna wanted all this to happen and the Kali-yuga to happen but I could be wrong because my brain is the size of a pea to begin with and the older I get the more foggy things are getting.

[andy108]

Yes, that was already touched on, and you don't have to include the whole previous post in a reply, especially when it is that big.

 

The nice thing is that in every circumstance, there is more than one truth involved, simultaneously.

[Kyros]

 

King Pariksit failed to deal with him instead allowed him four places to reside as well as in gold, which proved to be fatal, kali took resident in his gold Mukat, Kali did his job and Pariksit Maharaj acted in a way not fit for a King which he later regrated as thus;

 

Kali could not be killed.

 

Pariksit Maharaja allowed Kali to live in four places; however, those four places didn't exist.

 

Kali asked for leniency, and this is where Pariksit Maharaja was caught in a predicament. He chose to allow him to live in gold, because gold could be purified and regulated.

 

As for the little brahmana boy, he wasn't, or shouldn't have been wearing gold, nor was he anywhere near Pariksit Maharaja. He cursed Pariksit Maharja out of his own desire and arrogance.

 

Also, the claim that it was because of Pariksit Maharaja's action that warranted the little brahmana boy to curse him, but that is not the case.

 

The boy cursed Pariksit Maharaja because he felt that Pariksit Maharaja stepped over his boundaries BY ASKING FOR A GLASS OF WATER.

 

This is evident by the following verses:

 

SB 1.18.33: [The brāhmaṇa's son, Śṛńgi, said:] O just look at the sins of the rulers who, like crows and watchdogs at the door, perpetrate sins against their masters, contrary to the principles governing servants.

 

SB 1.18.34: The descendants of the kingly orders are definitely designated as watchdogs, and they must keep themselves at the door. On what grounds can dogs enter the house and claim to dine with the master on the same plate?

 

As you can see, there is no mention of the boy getting angry over the snake around his father's soldier. As a matter of fact, he most likely didn't even know there was a snake around his father's neck, and I provide the following verse to support my claim:

 

SB 1.18.38: Thereafter, when the boy returned to the hermitage, he saw a snake on his father's shoulder, and out of his grief he cried very loudly.

 

If he knew about the snake beforehand, why didn't he use that as a reason to curse Pariksit Maharaja? Instead he curses Pariksit Maharaja for asking for a glass of water.

 

Your argument is baseless.

 

Pariksit Maharaja was faultless. Kali was faultless as well because gold was nowhere near Srngi.

[theist]

Paroksa? Or how else do you explain a bull standing on one leg?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Paroksa? Or how else do you explain a bull standing on one leg?

It is not impossible to imagine a bull on the ground with three legs broken and only one leg left in somewhat of a standing position.

 

It is not like the bull was just totally standing upright on one leg.

 

The bull was for the most part not standing and attempting to stand on one leg.

That is about the only way we can imagine it by the descriptions.

 

Yet, at the same time, I agree that there is an allegorical aspect to it.

 

I think all these things are allegorical and personified at the same time.

 

Just like Rahu is allegorical of shadow consciousness yet is a planet accepted by Lord Brahma into the universal scheme.

[Sonic Yogi]

Ultimately, it was Krishna as the time factor in the form of Lord Shiva that brought about the circumstances to usher in the age of Kali.

 

Kali-yuga comes on schedule.

 

Time and tide wait for no man.

[andy108]

 

Your argument is baseless.

 

Pariksit Maharaja was faultless. Kali was faultless as well because gold was nowhere near Srngi.

 

You are right about his argument being off base, but so is your conclusion. Below is the logical progression based on the evidence and opinion of an advanced devotional servant of Lord Krsna. See the relevant portions of the purports below.

 

 

But because the age of Kali was seeking an opportunity to spoil the cultural heritage of the four orders of life, the inexperienced boy gave a chance for the age of Kali to enter into the field of Vedic culture. Hatred of the lower orders of life began from this brāhmaṇa boy, under the influence of Kali, and thus cultural life began to dwindle day after day. The first victim of brahminical injustice was Mahārāja Parīkṣit, and thus the protection given by the King against the onslaught of Kali was slackened.

 

Herein Śṛṅgi, a qualified son of a great brāhmaṇa, attained the required brahminical power both by birth and by training, but he was lacking in culture because he was an inexperienced boy. By the influence of Kali, the son of a brāhmaṇa became puffed up with brahminical power and thus wrongly compared Mahārāja Parīkṣit to crows and watchdogs.

 

Thus the downfall of the brahminical powers began as they gave importance to birthright without culture. The downfall of the brāhmaṇa caste began in the age of Kali. And since brāhmaṇas are the heads of the social order, all other orders of society also began to deteriorate.

 

This mentality of false prestige is the cause of downfallof the perfect social order, and we can see thatin the beginning it was started by the inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa.

 

The conclusion is not lack of proper birth or training, but lack of cultural experience, or lack of the culture of equal-vision, compassion and tolerance. This lack of cultural experience is Kali's refuge. This is why Srila Prabhupada came not just to train the brahminically inclined in potent ritual, but to infuse them with the culture of knowledge of Sri Krsna and how every living being is His part and parcel and how Krsna is present in every one, and how to treat each person for their best benefit instead of how it best benefits our own sense of prestige.

[Kyros]

 

You want to check your facts before you make such ridiculous statement neither Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva had anything to do with it, it was the result of Brahman Sukrachariya descendant of Brighu Muni, siding with asura, funny how a brahmana siding with asura can still be called Brahman!

I'm sorry, but you apparently have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Sukracarya was an athiest, or if it makes you happy, he was a brahmana influenced in the mode of passion and ignorance.

 

He was against Lord Visnu, and as a result, against varnashrama dharma.

 

 

Neither was Bali Maharaj so your point is mute.

Bali Maharaja had Sukracarya on his side, who was blessed by Lord Shiva to be able to revive the dead.

 

My point still stands.

 

 

Muslims were brutal, they were repulsed many times, each time they were spared instead of giving appropriate punishment they were freed to come back and fight another day. There is a lesson to learn here just as Pariksit Maharaj let the kali free this kings did the same with Muslims.

This wouldn't have happened with the Kshatriya's were trained properly by martial brahmanas.

 

 

Each time Brahmana gets the blame, you are really something, instead of giving praise to them for keeping and maintaining the Dharama against all the odds you are insulting them. You should read up on history how brutal the Muslims were.

The only brahmanas I would praise are those in line with Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Visnuswami, Nimbarkacarya, and to an extent, Sankaracarya.

 

Not those castist brahmanas.

 

 

Yet when Brits came they were astounded by the piety and culture of India. And only way they broke the backbone of Bharat was by spreading false propagandas about our Dharma and Brahmana in particular and sad part is you are still taking that bait to malign us.

 

Just think is there one country out there where Muslims or British ruled and survived their region intact?

This wouldn't have happened if the castist brahmanas weren't so stuck up and actually taught the rest of society something.

 

This is what happens when you keep people in ignorance.

 

The real brahmanas who kept Vedic civilization from falling completely apart of those mentioned above, and Vaishnava's like Tukarama or Tulsidas.

 

 

I leave that for you to decide, you guys are very good at apportioning blame twisting all logical reasoning, I was only using your yard stick.

What did I twist? I made a true statement. Nothing to twist there.

 

 

You are right our scripture are littered with wars, there always been struggle with forces of evil against the good. Some of us prefer to concentrate on dharma, you are welcome to blame the brahmanas without any evidence, and believe the propaganda spread by the British.

And you're accusing me of twisting information around? Talk about hypocrisy.

 

 

It never would have been possible but for people like you believing those lies spread by Brits, they attacked the very fabric of our society, the varna system, and people like you fell for it. If varna system was so bad why do you think your guru wanted to establish it, but failed.

First think the culture would not have existed if the brahmanas were fake.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

More ignorance and hypocrisy.

 

Our spiritual masters (plural) have never been more against those lies propogated by the British. You have things mixed up there.

 

And second, I'm not against the varnashrama system. I'm against the birth by caste concept. That's the root of what crippled Vedic civilization and allowed foreign invaders to take over.

 

And like I said, Prabhupada didn't get to complete ISKCON.

 

A house half built isn't very stable in the first place.

[Kyros]

 

You are right about his argument being off base, but so is your conclusion. Below is the logical progression based on the evidence and opinion of an advanced devotional servant of Lord Krsna. See the relevant portions of the purports below.

 

 

But because the age of Kali was seeking an opportunity to spoil the cultural heritage of the four orders of life, the inexperienced boy gave a chance for the age of Kali to enter into the field of Vedic culture. Hatred of the lower orders of life began from this brāhmaṇa boy, under the influence of Kali, and thus cultural life began to dwindle day after day. The first victim of brahminical injustice was Mahārāja Parīkṣit, and thus the protection given by the King against the onslaught of Kali was slackened.

 

Herein Śṛṅgi, a qualified son of a great brāhmaṇa, attained the required brahminical power both by birth and by training, but he was lacking in culture because he was an inexperienced boy. By the influence of Kali, the son of a brāhmaṇa became puffed up with brahminical power and thus wrongly compared Mahārāja Parīkṣit to crows and watchdogs.

 

Thus the downfall of the brahminical powers began as they gave importance to birthright without culture. The downfall of the brāhmaṇa caste began in the age of Kali. And since brāhmaṇas are the heads of the social order, all other orders of society also began to deteriorate.

 

This mentality of false prestige is the cause of downfallof the perfect social order, and we can see thatin the beginning it was started by the inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa.

 

The conclusion is not lack of proper birth or training, but lack of cultural experience, or lack of the culture of equal-vision, compassion and tolerance. This lack of cultural experience is Kali's refuge. This is why Srila Prabhupada came not just to train the brahminically inclined in potent ritual, but to infuse them with the culture of knowledge of Sri Krsna and how every living being is His part and parcel and how Krsna is present in every one, and how to treat each person for their best benefit instead of how it best benefits our own sense of prestige.

 

Alas! Look at my imperfection!

 

I apologize for the false information then. So in the end, it was because of the time and circumstance that all of that transpired, and not because of Pariksit Maharaja or the brahmana boy.

[andy108]

 

Alas! Look at my imperfection!

 

I apologize for the false information then. So in the end, it was because of the time and circumstance that all of that transpired, and not because of Pariksit Maharaja or the brahmana boy.

 

Prabhu, just see that it is all of those things. Every truth you see has a relation to the Absolute Truth and his plan.

 

Kali made his choices. Srngi made his choices. King Pariksit made his.

 

King Pariksit was a more experienced and cultured person at his evolutionary moment, as compared to the powerful but inexperienced and uncultured young Brahmana boy.

 

Kali was, well powerfully influenced by Tama guna, but he surrendered to a Maha-Bhagavat, so received some mercy.

 

And yes all are and were puppets of the Lord's will and desire, either directly through guidance from within, or indirectly by the direction of the Lord's pure servant Maha-Maya.

 

Its all good as someone once said.

[theist]

I see this story as an illustration of the advent of kali-yuga and not so much a happening between a handful of characters.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Kali could not be killed.

 

Pariksit Maharaja allowed Kali to live in four places; however, those four places didn't exist.

 

What nonsense, you are living in a cloud cookoo land, Maharaj Youdhistir gambled his wife, Ajamil got involved with prostitute, should I go on.

 

 

 

Kali asked for leniency, and this is where Pariksit Maharaja was caught in a predicament. He chose to allow him to live in gold, because gold could be purified and regulated.

 

What? I don’t get it.

Gold is something people get mad about.

 

 

 

As for the little brahmana boy, he wasn't, or shouldn't have been wearing gold, nor was he anywhere near Pariksit Maharaja. He cursed Pariksit Maharja out of his own desire and arrogance.

 

I never said brahmana boy was wearing gold, it was the king who was wearing gold in his crown. Why would such a noble king behave so badly against the Samik rishi, if not but the influence of kali.

 

 

Also, the claim that it was because of Pariksit Maharaja's action that warranted the little brahmana boy to curse him, but that is not the case.

 

There was no reason other then that, had Pariksit Maharaj not acted as he did he would have no reason to do anything.

 

 

 

The boy cursed Pariksit Maharaja because he felt that Pariksit Maharaja stepped over his boundaries BY ASKING FOR A GLASS OF WATER.

 

I am dumfounded by this logic, I am lost for words, even today if you went to an Indian house first thing normally offered is water. Bhagvat clearly says the boy got angry because he heard of his fathers distress

 

SB 1.18.32: The sage had a son who was very powerful, being a Brahmana,s son. While he was playing with inexperienced boys, he heard of his father's distress, which was occasioned by the King. Then and there the boy spoke as follows.

 

What possible other distress did the father have? You are letting your imegination running head of you.

 

 

This is evident by the following verses:

 

SB 1.18.33: [The brāhmaṇa's son, Śṛńgi, said:] O just look at the sins of the rulers who, like crows and watchdogs at the door, perpetrate sins against their masters, contrary to the principles governing servants.

 

SB 1.18.34: The descendants of the kingly orders are definitely designated as watchdogs, and they must keep themselves at the door. On what grounds can dogs enter the house and claim to dine with the master on the same plate?

 

As you can see, there is no mention of the boy getting angry over the snake around his father's soldier.

 

There could not be any reason other then the child’s hearing of his father distress. following verses are child’s opinion of what a kings duty is towards the kingdom and in particular to a Rishi.

 

 

As a matter of fact, he most likely didn't even know there was a snake around his father's neck, and I provide the following verse to support my claim:

 

SB 1.18.38: Thereafter, when the boy returned to the hermitage, he saw a snake on his father's shoulder, and out of his grief he cried very loudly.

 

Perhaps you can tell us with your wild imagination what was the ground of the boy hearing about his fathers distress? what was the distress?

 

 

 

If he knew about the snake beforehand, why didn't he use that as a reason to curse Pariksit Maharaja? Instead he curses Pariksit Maharaja for asking for a glass of water.

 

Please be reasonable, give this little balak (child) some credit, no one would begrudge someone a little water, beside such a scenario would not have any ground for any distress, remember all this time the Samik rishi is in trance.

 

 

 

 

Pariksit Maharaja was faultless. Kali was faultless as well because gold was nowhere near Srngi.

 

Sure that is why Pariksit Maharaj felt remorse, do you want me to quote the verse again?

Gold was surely on Pariksit Maharaj head, perhaps I am not explaining this properly or simply you are not reading what I wrote.

 

 

Sukracarya was an athiest, or if it makes you happy, he was a brahmana influenced in the mode of passion and ignorance.

 

He was against Lord Visnu, and as a result, against varnashrama dharma.

 

don’t make me Lough, if he was atheist why would he have gods on his side.

The son of brigu top most amongst sages, who went to study Vedas. Infect Krishna says I am Kavi amongst Ussana (Sukracarya).

You have no idea what you talk about, only reason he joined asuras was because of his dislike of favouritism, Brihspati the priest of Deva received from his father.

 

He recognised Lord Vishnu as soon he saw him, hardly a symptom for some who is in mode of ignorance.

 

 

 

Bali Maharaja had Sukracarya on his side, who was blessed by Lord Shiva to be able to revive the dead.

 

My point still stands.

 

Hardly unless of course if you think Brahspati or Indra did not have anybody on their side. Lets not make this Shiva V Vishnu duel, fact of the matter was that assura's were stronger at the time. No fault of Brahmana Brahspati and this is the point it was no fault of Brahmana cast or otherwise for the fall of India, they were simply faced with adversary far brutal and stronger against the satriyas King made week, by the influence of Jain and Buddist ahimsa doctrine.

 

 

And second, I'm not against the varnashrama system. I'm against the birth by caste concept. That's the root of what crippled Vedic civilization and allowed foreign invaders to take over.

 

And like I said, Prabhupada didn't get to complete ISKCON.

 

A house half built isn't very stable in the first place.

 

If everything that’s been said on this board is believed, Prabhupad gave Sanyas to unworthy character knowingly, then the foundation was shaky from the start.

Lets face it the experiment failed miserably.

 

 

 

The only brahmanas I would praise are those in line with Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Visnuswami, Nimbarkacarya, and to an extent, Sankaracarya.

The real brahmanas who kept Vedic civilization from falling completely apart of those mentioned above, and Vaishnava's like Tukarama or Tulsidas.

 

Not those castist brahmanas.

 

Here you betray your real objection, nothing to do with castist, just check what you list as Acharya, all of them Vaisnava and off course you would pay lip service to Sankaracarya (there is no escaping that). All the others, who worshiped other then Lord Vishnu are to blame, yes.

 

But you loose all your arguments simply because most if not all the Acharya you have listed, actually believed in varna by birth including Tulsidas

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Kyros]

 

 

What nonsense, you are living in a cloud cookoo land, Maharaj Youdhistir gambled his wife, Ajamil got involved with prostitute, should I go on.

Go on.

Kshatriya's can gamble. I'm talking about brahmana's here.

Ajamil while born and raised like a brahmana, had inherent qualities of a sudra. That's why he fell and STAYED fallen. He later became a Vaishnava, but only after an extreme ordeal.

What? I don’t get it.

Gold is something people get mad about.

But it can be purified and regulated.

I never said brahmana boy was wearing gold, it was the king who was wearing gold in his crown. Why would such a noble king behave so badly against the Samik rishi, if not but the influence of kali.

Andy already pointed this flaw out to me. Go read his post.

There was no reason other then that, had Pariksit Maharaj not acted as he did he would have no reason to do anything.

I am dumfounded by this logic, I am lost for words, even today if you went to an Indian house first thing normally offered is water. Bhagvat clearly says the boy got angry because he heard of his fathers distress

No, go reread what I posted. The brahmana boy didn't get mad because of the snake. He didn't mention anything about the snake. You're trying to bend the point-blank meaning of the verses.

SB 1.18.32: The sage had a son who was very powerful, being a Brahmana,s son. While he was playing with inexperienced boys, he heard of his father's distress, which was occasioned by the King. Then and there the boy spoke as follows.

What possible other distress did the father have? You are letting your imegination running head of you.

There could not be any reason other then the child’s hearing of his father distress. following verses are child’s opinion of what a kings duty is towards the kingdom and in particular to a Rishi.

Perhaps you can tell us with your wild imagination what was the ground of the boy hearing about his fathers distress? what was the distress?

No, the verses state this clearly. He considered the "watchdog" king asking his father for some water to be distressful to him. No mention of snake.

Please be reasonable, give this little balak (child) some credit, no one would begrudge someone a little water, beside such a scenario would not have any ground for any distress, remember all this time the Samik rishi is in trance.

Yet, this is what the child was complaining about, and ended up cursing him for. Verses state this clearly.

Sure that is why Pariksit Maharaj felt remorse, do you want me to quote the verse again?

Gold was surely on Pariksit Maharaj head, perhaps I am not explaining this properly or simply you are not reading what I wrote.

What I meant by faultless is that he shouldn't have been cursed like he did. That was uncalled for. Even the brahmana boys' father stated it. As a matter of fact, here's a verses that will exempt Pariksit Maharaja from his so called “crime.”

 

 

 

SB 1.18.44: Due to the termination of the monarchical regimes and the plundering of the people's wealth by rogues and thieves, there will be great social disruptions. People will be killed and injured, and animals and women will be stolen. And for all these sins weshall be responsible.

 

Pariksit Maharaja was faultless. Andy has already pointed out that it was the will of the Supreme that all of this transpired.

 

don’t make me Lough, if he was atheist why would he have gods on his side.

The son of brigu top most amongst sages, who went to study Vedas. Infect Krishna says I am Kavi amongst Ussana (Sukracarya).

You have no idea what you talk about, only reason he joined asuras was because of his dislike of favouritism, Brihspati the priest of Deva received from his father.

How does he have the gods on his side? He's constantly helping the asuras, and because he does that, I call him an atheist. Or would you prefer me to call him an asuras as well? That wouldn't be so off.

He recognised Lord Vishnu as soon he saw him, hardly a symptom for some who is in mode of ignorance.

I suppose all demons are in the mode of goodness then?

Hardly unless of course if you think Brahspati or Indra did not have anybody on their side. Lets not make this Shiva V Vishnu duel, fact of the matter was that assura's were stronger at the time. No fault of Brahmana Brahspati and this is the point it was no fault of Brahmana cast or otherwise for the fall of India, they were simply faced with adversary far brutal and stronger against the satriyas King made week, by the influence of Jain and Buddist ahimsa doctrine.

Maybe you didn't understand what I said earlier. So let me explain this with more information.

Various demons do penances for thousands of years to gain boons from either Lord Brahma and Lord Siva. Why would they do this? It's because asuras are overall, inherently weaker than the devas. So Lord Brahma or Lord Siva become pleased with the asuras, and they're obliged to give them some sort of boon in return. The keyword here is obliged. It's not that they want to, but that they're obliged. So the asuras, getting some pretty powerful boons (like the boon of not being able to be killed by devas) REALLY REALLY help them out.

The best example here is Hiranyakasipu. He did penances for hundreds of celestial years, and Lord Brahma finally appeared before him, and gave him all sorts of boons. You should read up on it. There was no way for Brhaspati, or Lord Indra to be able to defeat asuras when they are protected by boons of a higher authority. That's the only time brahmanas and kshatriyas are unable to do anything without the help of Lord Visnu.

There was no proper brahmana caste in the beginning of Kali-Yuga. That's why Lord Buddha came and preached against the Vedas because the so called brahmanas back then were misusing the scriptures. This was later reestablished by Sankaracarya, but people wouldn't accept deity worship back as quickly, so he stuck with his advaita philosophy. Then later on, the four sampradayas showed up to reestablish Lord Visnu's supremecy.

 

However, fake brahmanas also popped up all over the place, and as a result India couldn't fight back as strongly as it could.

 

 

If everything that’s been said on this board is believed, Prabhupad gave Sanyas to unworthy character knowingly, then the foundation was shaky from the start.

Lets face it the experiment failed miserably.

So your main source of information is this board? Then you're automatically doomed to misunderstand ISKCON.

We already have successful farm communities set up; not to the extent that we would like, but we're getting there. He may have given sannyasa to who appear unworthy, but many of the people fell down because they weren't complete in their training. Srila Prabhupada knew he didn't have much time in this world, considering his age, so he gave his disciples sannyasa so people in India could take them seriously.

Try to understand.

Prabhupada wanted to reestablish Vedic culture all over the world, and he was the only one who was able to convince thousands of non-Vedic people to take up the culture. Nobody else would have given them sannyasa. He couldn't trust most of his godbrothers because most were against him, there was only a couple of his godbrothers that supported him but they were in India. So he took the best course of action.

ISKCON is still around, and it's only grown stronger despite all the falldowns that have happened. We have more members than we did back then. It certainly doesn't sound like we're failing.

 

I could go on and on, about this, but the point is that Srila Prabhupada certainly caused a ripple in the world. ISKCON is just a name.

Here you betray your real objection, nothing to do with castist, just check what you list as Acharya, all of them Vaisnava and off course you would pay lip service to Sankaracarya (there is no escaping that). All the others, who worshiped other then Lord Vishnu are to blame, yes.

But you loose all your arguments simply because most if not all the Acharya you have listed, actually believed in varna by birth including Tulsidas

Demigod worship is not recommended by the four sampradaya's. As a matter of fact, it is considered that their intelligence is considered stolen if they do.

 

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-07-20.html

 

They also do not recommend that caste is by birth, but qualities of action:

 

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-03-05.html

 

And finally, the Vajra-Sucika Upanisad rejects all caste by birth conceptions.

 

 

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

 

Go on.

 

 

Kshatriya's can gamble. I'm talking about brahmana's here.

 

 

 

 

Not really my response was to your quote and I quote again

 

 

Kali could not be killed.

 

Pariksit Maharaja allowed Kali to live in four places; however, those four places didn't exist.

 

Do you still maintain those four places did not exist, I can rally go on.

 

 

 

No, go reread what I posted. The brahmana boy didn't get mad because of the snake. He didn't mention anything about the snake. You're trying to bend the point-blank meaning of the verses.

No, the verses state this clearly. He considered the "watchdog" king asking his father for some water to be distressful to him. No mention of snake.

Lets not get bogged down by the child’s opinion of the king, his duties and his place.

Fact is the boy heard of his fathers distress, what could be the fathers distress? That is under question not boys opinion. So lets consider what that might be, and how he possibly come to hear off it,

Known facts, the king approached the hermitage in the hope to quench his thirst, saw the rishi in medition, having had no response the king places a dead snake on the body of the sage. So we have two possible answer

a) there was some one there who witness all and was able to relay that information to the boy.

In that case why did the king not approach that person. Further more there no suggestion that there was any one there.

B) someone came by after the event and saw the sage, with the snake on him and that is all he could relay to the boy.

What I meant by faultless is that he shouldn't have been cursed like he did. That was uncalled for. Even the brahmana boys' father stated it.

I agree if you cared to read my first response I said the punishment did not fit the crime

As a matter of fact, here's a verses that will exempt Pariksit Maharaja from his so called “crime.”

 

SB 1.18.44: Due to the termination of the monarchical regimes and the plundering of the people's wealth by rogues and thieves, there will be great social disruptions. People will be killed and injured, and animals and women will be stolen. And for all these sins weshall be responsible.

 

How this exempt him from his act is beyond me, but you can have it, does not matter.

 

 

How does he have the gods on his side? He's constantly helping the asuras, and because he does that, I call him an atheist. Or would you prefer me to call him an asuras as well? That wouldn't be so off.

While you at it why don’t you call Lord Shiva atheist or asura, he is for ever helping who ever worship him, even asuras.

Sukracharya is not an atheist unless you can bring a sastric proof don’t go there.

I suppose all demons are in the mode of goodness then?

Who so ever can recognize the Lord are more the in mode of goodness they are blessed.

Maybe you didn't understand what I said earlier. So let me explain this with more information.

The best example here is Hiranyakasipu. He did penances for hundreds of celestial years, and Lord Brahma finally appeared before him, and gave him all sorts of boons. You should read up on it. There was no way for Brhaspati, or Lord Indra to be able to defeat asuras when they are protected by boons of a higher authority. That's the only time brahmanas and kshatriyas are unable to do anything without the help of Lord Visnu.

Lets face it we were not, at least not me, talking about this various asuras. Balimaharaj had no boons from any deva, he was guided by Sukracharya an atheist by your defination, so Brahispati and Indra were faced by weaker asura again your defination and lost end off.

There was no proper brahmana caste in the beginning of Kali-Yuga. That's why Lord Buddha came and preached against the Vedas because the so called brahmanas back then were misusing the scriptures. This was later reestablished by Sankaracarya, but people wouldn't accept deity worship back as quickly, so he stuck with his advaita philosophy. Then later on, the four sampradayas showed up to reestablish Lord Visnu's supremecy.

 

Are you going to back this up with any Vedic ref.? all of this is your opinion may be excepted within your group, no Buddhist, or followers of Sankracharya would believe this. Lord Vishnu’s supremacy is not under question here.

 

 

 

However, fake brahmanas also popped up all over the place, and as a result India couldn't fight back as strongly as it could.

 

Care to explain where this so called fake brahmanas popped up from, were they more powerful then those four sampradaya? Did you know Sankracharya, Madhvachaya and company actually believed in Varna by birth?

 

 

 

So your main source of information is this board? Then you're automatically doomed to misunderstand ISKCON.

I have been associated with Iskcon for over thirty years, I have witness lies, extortion of money from unsuspecting Hindus, I have seen Tirthpada, Bhagvan, Vipramukhi and company fall. to think that I use to bow down to them, wana make me puke.

We already have successful farm communities set up; not to the extent that we would like, but we're getting there. He may have given sannyasa to who appear unworthy, but many of the people fell down because they weren't complete in their training. Srila Prabhupada knew he didn't have much time in this world, considering his age, so he gave his disciples sannyasa so people in India could take them seriously.

In other words he either did not know their varna or he knew but still went ahead in the hope that they may reform, no wonder it spells disaster. As far as I know the varna is for life time. Krishna warns about keeping to ones duty, it is not as if I shell try one thing today and if it fails take up something else.

We can give any tom dick and harry sanyas in order that people in India would take them seriously, wow do you know what you are saying? I give up.

Quote:

 

<TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=160>Here you betray your real objection, nothing to do with castist, just check what you list as Acharya, all of them Vaisnava and off course you would pay lip service to Sankaracarya (there is no escaping that). All the others, who worshiped other then Lord Vishnu are to blame, yes.

 

 

But you loose all your arguments simply because most if not all the Acharya you have listed, actually believed in varna by birth including Tulsidas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Demigod worship is not recommended by the four sampradaya's. As a matter of fact, it is considered that their intelligence is considered stolen if they do.

 

 

 

Now you confirm what I suspected all along, worship of deva that bother you. Your assessment of BG.20 is so faulty and bias to say the least.

The words spoken by Lord Krishna are more appropriately translated:

 

“Those whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires, being prompted by theirown nature, worship other Deities, adopting rules relating to each.

 

On other hand this what Krishna says

 

Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna andsaid:

By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)

 

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

Men in the mode of goodness worship the devas; those in the mode of passion worshipthe demons;

and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. (17.4)

 

The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)

Now this is not a subject under discussion but it is your deep rooted problem of worship of devas that betrays your objection of Verna system for which you have no clue how to establish or recognize, a job I would think best suited to Dharmaraj who would know karma and desire of a given soul and place them in the appropriate varna. Unless of course if you think there is no guna and karma involved in a persons birth and everything is a random selection.

 

You claimed to come from Brahma Goudia Madhva sampradaya and Madhvachrya accepted varna by birth, so you don’t really have a leg to stand on.

 

Jai Shree Krishna