Kyros Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Not really my response was to your quote and I quote again Do you still maintain those four places did not exist, I can rally go on. They did in Dhrtarastra's kingdom and in Ajamil's time. Unless you can show me proof they existed in Maharaj Pariksit's kingdom, you should keep quiet on this. 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. The boy obviously didn't care about the snake around his father's neck since he didn't mention it. I agree if you cared to read my first response I said the punishment did not fit the crime I apologize then. 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. Lord Siva is equiposed to both demigods and asuras. He sees all beings as souls. Whatever boon he gives to asuras ultimately brings them to Lord Visnu, and whatever boon he gives to good people brings them to Lord Visnu. If you want sastric proof, I would have you read Sri Padma Purana, Uttara Khanda Chapters 235-236. Sukracharya is not an atheist unless you can bring a sastric proof don’t go there. You must understand that me calling Sukracarya an atheist doesn't mean he does not believe in God. My use of the word is different than the standard, so I'll just clear that up now. Instead, I'll call Sukracarya an asura, would that be better? In Srimad Bhagavatam 8.20.* and 8.21.*, Sukracarya is advising Bali Maharaja to go against the order of Lord Vamanadeva, knowing full well who He is. SB 5.5.18: "One who cannot deliver his dependents from the path of repeated birth and death should never become a spiritual master, a father, a husband, a mother or a worshipable demigod. The duties of the spiritual master is the guide his followers/disciples back to Lord Visnu's abodes, and to do that you must become a devotee of the Lord. However, in those verses Sukracarya is against giving Lord Vamanadeva anything at all. In other words he was advising Bali Maharaja to neglect Lord Vamanadeva. What kind of spiritual master would advise his disciple to reject the Lord's desire? Let's also not forget the fact he's helping the asuras... 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. He had Sukracarya on his side, who was blessed by Lord Siva to be able to revive the dead. Being able to revive dead soldiers would really help out an army, don't you think? 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. Padma Purana 6.236.7 mayavadam asac chastram pracchannam bauddham uchyate mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana rupina "Mayavada or Advaita philosophy is an impious, wicked belief and against all the conclusions of the Vedas. It is only covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in Kali-Yoga I assume the form of a brahmana (Adi Shankara) and teach this imagined philosophy. Padma Purana 6.236.8-9 apartham sruti-vakyanam darsayan loka-garhitam sva-karma-rupam tyajya tvam atraiva pratipadyate sarva-karma paribhrastair vaidharma tvam tad ucyate paresa-jiva-paraikyam maya tu pratipadyate "This mayavada advaita philosophy preached by me (in form of Adi Shankara) deprives the words of the holy texts of their acutal meaning and thus it is condemned in the world. It recommends the renunciation of one's own duties, since those who have fallen from their duties say that the giving up of duties is religiosity. In this way, I have also falsely propounded the identity of the Supreme Lord and the individual soul." Padma Purana 6.236.10 brahmanas caparam rupam nirgunam vaksyate maya sarva-svam jagato py asya mohanartham kalu yuge "In order to bewilder the atheists, in Kali-yuga, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Gauranga Krishna to be without any form and without qualities." Padma Purana 6.236.11 vedante tu maha-sastrera mayavadam avaidikam mayaiva vaksyate devi jagatam nasha-karanat "Similarly, in explaning Vedanta mahashastra, I described the same non-scriptural and inauspicious mayavada philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of my beloved Lord." As for Lord Buddha, He's been mentioned in various Puranas as well. Harivamsha (1.41),Vishnu Purana (3.18), Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.23), Garuda Purana (1.1, 2.30.37, 3.15.26)<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference"></sup>, Narada Purana (2.72), Linga Purana (2.71), Padma Purana (3.252) 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. Well, maybe you don't know, but there are a lot of people who claim to follow Gaudiya Vaishnavism but don't follow the rules and regulations. You can't go around calling yourself a vegatarian with a piece of meat in your mouth. Similarily, you can't call yourself a Gaudiya if you yourself don't follow the rules and regulations. I'm sorry for your troubles, but it doesn't mean our core philosophy is corrupt. I haven't seen anywhere in our texts that say that we should scam and cheat people. 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. He wasn't concerned about varna, he was concerned about them taking up Krsna Consciousness. Varna and ashrama are temporary, they're not permanent. 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. Considering that many Indian's are taking up the Western way of life, it's good "ammo" to have Westerners chanting the name of a "Hindu" God. Risky, but like you have stated before, our culture is dying out, and people still believe in some of the crap the Brits fed to them. The only way people will take them up again is if they were inherently intelligence in the first place, or westerners tell them the truth. Which is slowly taking place. Many scholars have now questioned the validity of the Aryan Invasion Theory, and now the whole Indo-European language theory is coming under attack as well. 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 their own nature, worship other Deities, adopting rules relating to each. It says the same thing. My desires do not know wisdom. The verse I quoted has a clearer interpretation. 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. The devas cannot offer liberation, only the Supreme Lord can offer liberation. What Lord Krsna talks about up there is Karma-Yoga. Which does eventually give you liberation, but it is not the conclusion of the Bhagavad Gita. 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 No, he didn't. Caste by birth isn't supported by sastra. Visvamitra was a Kshatriya, but he later on became a Brahmana. Your caste is determined by your actions. Dronacarya and Krpacarya were both brahmanas, but on the battlefield, they were to be considered kshatriyas. Vyasadeva himself was born from a fishermans daughter OUT OF WEDLOCK. Are you sure you want to call him a sudra? Please use some common sense. I got more for you... One middle-class Delhi couple that wedded three years ago illustrates how such negotiations work. Arun and Deepti decided to get hitched in 2005 after dating secretly for a few years. When they approached their families, both sides objected. Though both are Brahmins, they belong to different subcastes, and Arun is from Bihar, considered a backward region, while Deepti grew up in Delhi; she is also better educated, speaks better English, and has a higher-paying job than Arun. But over time, sustained lobbying won over the families. "We both were ready to have a runaway marriage," says Deepti. "But we wanted our parents to agree. That is something which has not changed in India." Today, to show her respect, Deepti veils her face when she visits Arun's family in conservative Bihar, and Arun (a rare atheist) goes to temple to please Deepti's parents. Love, as they say, may still conquer all; but in India today, tradition remains nearly as powerful. Hey look! A Brahmin atheist! Source Here's a more... We have a western Vaisnava (who was born in a mleccha family), who wakes up during the brahma-muhurta every morning, takes bath thrice daily, applies urdhva-pundra in all twelve places on the body, wears dhoti and kaupina, chants Lord Govinda's name 25,000 times, worships Tulasi, worships the Deity form of the Lord with sixteen upacaras, lives a life of celibacy, is a strict vegetarian, does not eat onions, garlic and other forbidden foods, does not drink tea or coffee, does not take any form of intoxication, offers whatever he cooks to Krsna, does not smoke, does not gamble, studies the sastras, performs kirtana, fasts on ekadasi, and distributes the Bhagavad-gita to fallen people in the most degraded places.…he is (to be considered) a fallen Mleccha (because of birth), without any brahminical quality whatsoever and is destined to be cast into eternal hell. Compared to… A young man from Daksina Kannada, born in a brahmana family, studied some scripture at the local sabha when he was a child, now living in America, wakes up at 7.00am, eats his Corn-Flakes, gulps down his coffee and rushes out to catch the tube into town, works for a Mleccha beef-eating-manager (now what does that say for their guna and karma?) in a software company in order to send some money home to his family in Bangalore, watches Hindi films and cricket on Zee-TV on the cable-television so that he doesn't become totally home-sick, wears a three-piece suit at the office and Levi jeans at home, has never heard of a kaupina or longhoti and wears 'Fruit of the Loom' underwear instead, has forgotten how to put on a dhoti or lungi and is not inclined to remember, wouldn't dare apply urdhva-pundra because his friends would laugh at him, trying desperately for a green-card, is vegetarian but doesn't really look too closely at the E-numbers on the back of the packet ("It's OK — Krsna says in Gita, 'Patram puspam' and 'Ma sucah!'"), has no time to read sastras because he is too busy working for money, and tries to keep in touch with his culture via a webpage run by a group of young men in a similar situation…and of course, he is a brahmana! Do you see how stupid the caste by birth concept is? Give me a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Pranam They did in Dhrtarastra's kingdom and in Ajamil's time. Unless you can show me proof they existed in Maharaj Pariksit's kingdom, you should keep quiet on this. Maharaj Yudhister followed Dhrtarast and they were there in his kindom, seeing that he decided to leave and I quote SB 1.15.37: Maharaj Yudhister was intelligent enough to understand the influence of the age of Kali, characterized by increasing avarice, falsehood, cheating and violence throughout the capital, state, home and among individuals. So he wisely prepared himself to leave home, and he dressed accordingly. So it is reasonable to assume it was there in Maharaj Pariksit reign. The boy obviously didn't care about the snake around his father's neck since he didn't mention it. In that case you will have to tell me what was the distress he heard and how. You must understand that me calling Sukracarya an atheist doesn't mean he does not believe in God. My use of the word is different than the standard, so I'll just clear that up now. Great now we have a new defination of atheist, very rich. Instead, I'll call Sukracarya an asura, would that be better? Then we have to read in gita,amongst the Kavi (poet) I am asura have it your way. If you want sastric proof, I would have you read Sri Padma Purana, Uttara Khanda Chapters 235-236. Padma Purana 6.236.7Padma Purana 6.236.8-9 Padma Purana 6.236.10 Padma Purana 6.236.11 Do you accept Shiva Gita of the Puran? No one off Sakracharya followers would accept this. As for Lord Buddha, He's been mentioned in various Puranas as well. Harivamsha (1.41),Vishnu Purana (3.18), Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.23), Garuda Purana (1.1, 2.30.37, 3.15.26), Narada Purana (2.72), Linga Purana (2.71), Padma Purana (3.252) I have no doubt Buddha is mentioned in Purana, but I doubt very much your simplistic version is accepted by those who follow him, some even contend the Buddha of Puran is not the same as Gautam Budh. Well, maybe you don't know, but there are a lot of people who claim to follow Gaudiya Vaishnavism but don't follow the rules and regulations. You can't go around calling yourself a vegatarian with a piece of meat in your mouth. Similarily, you can't call yourself a Gaudiya if you yourself don't follow the rules and regulations. What? He wasn't concerned about varna, he was concerned about them taking up Krsna Consciousness. You want have any argument from me over this. Varna and ashrama are temporary, they're not permanent. Very important part of Vedic dharma take that out and we have society of cats and dogs. Considering that many Indian's are taking up the Western way of life, it's good "ammo" to have Westerners chanting the name of a "Hindu" God. That is no reason to dilute the top most order of Vedic way of life the Sanyasi is not for any Tom Dick or Harry. Risky, but like you have stated before, our culture is dying out, Where did I say this and people still believe in some of the crap the Brits fed to them. The only way people will take them up again is if they were inherently intelligence in the first place, or westerners tell them the truth. Which is slowly taking place. Many scholars have now questioned the validity of the Aryan Invasion Theory, and now the whole Indo-European language theory is coming under attack as well. Truth would come out in the end with or without westerners, considering they spread the lies in the first place. No, he didn't. Ask any Madhvacharya followers. Caste by birth isn't supported by sastra. Care to give any quotes. Visvamitra was a Kshatriya, but he later on became a Brahmana. Your caste is determined by your actions. This is one vary exceptional case and this he achieved after thousand of years. Dronacarya and Krpacarya were both brahmanas, but on the battlefield, they were to be considered kshatriyas. They were never called Kshatriyya, infect Dronacarya’s son Asvasthama having killed the Pandava’s son even then Dropadi referred to him as Brahmin. Even after seeing the Lord in his Virat rup Arjun is calling Karan, the Sut putra even though he is a great warrior. Birth is one’s pahechan there is no escaping that but a noble person is Dhira not disturbed by all this, one’s job is to know the truth and in pursuit of this there is no loss, if I fail than there will be a better chance later. Death is a great leveller. Gita chapter one, The everlasting qualities of Varna and family traditions of those who destroy their family are ruined by the sinful act of illegitimacy. (1.43) This is one clear indication of birth varna connection. We have been told, O Krishna, that people whose family traditions are destroyed necessarily dwell in hell for a long time. (1.44) Now Arjun was worried about kula dharma what would that be I ask? Because some of you may have us believe it could be any number of four. Vyasadeva himself was born from a fishermans daughter OUT OF WEDLOCK. Are you sure you want to call him a sudra? He was born off Parasarmuni, one’s gotra is always known by the fathers. Please use some common sense. I got more for you... Hey look! A Brahmin atheist! Very good and this is suppose to prove your point yes Here's a more... Quote: <TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=219>We have a western Vaisnava (who was born in a mleccha family), ------ is destined to be cast into eternal hell. Compared to… A young man from Daksina Kannada, born in a brahmana family, studied some scripture ------ keep in touch with his culture via a webpage run by a group of young men in a similar situation…and of course, he is a brahmana! </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> Do you see how stupid the caste by birth concept is? Give me a break. Formal if he keeps up then my Pranam and all good wishes but I have seen much too often the falling from grace, what was the word they used, oh yes, spaced out. The later is a product of poverty, if he is earning his keep honestly and does not neglect his dharma then he surely will have chance to progress, if not he would have wasted his good karma and regress in to lower form of life. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyros Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Maharaj Yudhister followed Dhrtarast and they were there in his kindom, seeing that he decided to leave and I quote SB 1.15.37: Maharaj Yudhister was intelligent enough to understand the influence of the age of Kali, characterized by increasing avarice, falsehood, cheating and violence throughout the capital, state, home and among individuals. So he wisely prepared himself to leave home, and he dressed accordingly. So it is reasonable to assume it was there in Maharaj Pariksit reign. That's where you fall apart. The scriptures clearly imply that Maharaja Pariksit's kingdom didn't have any of those problems. Just because avarice, falsehood, cheating, and violence was increasing doesn't mean animal slaughter, gambling, prostitution, and intoxications were there. It was getting there, but Maharaj Pariksit was holding them back. In that case you will have to tell me what was the distress he heard and how. Isn't it implied in what he said? Great now we have a new defination of atheist, very rich. English words are known to evolve... Then we have to read in gita,amongst the Kavi (poet) I am asura have it your way. That's an allegory. Most of the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is an allegory. Lord Krsna was trying to tell the people how great He is, and he uses allegorical accounts to make a point. Do you accept Shiva Gita of the Puran? No one off Sakracharya followers would accept this. They really have no choice. The Padma Purana is a Vedic text. If they reject it, what can they accept then? Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda, 236.18–21 vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me " O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance." The 18 Maha-Puranas are divided up into three modes. Six of them are in the mode of goodness, six are in the mode of passion, and six of them are in the mode of ignorance. The Matsya Purana also states that Sattvic Puranas glorify Lord Visnu, Rajasic Puranas glorify Lord Brahma, and Tamasika Puranas glorify Lord Siva. I don't have the actual quote, but you can find it early on in the Purana. The Padma Purana, being situated in the mode of goodness, is superior to Shiva Purana, which is situated in the mode of ignorance. If there are two contradicting statements, the one in a superior mode is to be taken as the truth. Lord Krsna confirms that only the mode of goodness can give knowledge. Bhagavad Gita 14.17 sattvāt sañjāyate jñānaḿ rajaso lobha eva ca pramāda-mohau tamaso bhavato 'jñānam eva ca From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion. So for instance, the Shiva Purana states Lord Shiva is supreme, while the Padma Purana states Lord Visnu is supreme. Which one to accept? We accept the one in the higher mode. Also, all the Puranas are connected together. At the end of each Purana, other Puranas are mentioned, along with the number of verses. If you take all of the Puranas together, you get the 18 Maha-Purana. I have no doubt Buddha is mentioned in Purana, but I doubt very much your simplistic version is accepted by those who follow him, some even contend the Buddha of Puran is not the same as Gautam Budh. I actually happen to believe Lord Buddha and Gautama Buddha are different. That's another subject though. What? They were analogies. Just because someone calls themselves something, does not mean they are....kind of confusing. In other words, just because they call themselves followers of Prabhupada, does not mean they actually are followers of Prabhupada. You can't call yourself a vegetarian, and then behind everybodies back, eat some meat. Very important part of Vedic dharma take that out and we have society of cats and dogs. That is no reason to dilute the top most order of Vedic way of life the Sanyasi is not for any Tom Dick or Harry. People get too attached to their roles as Brahmana or Sannyasa. While the varnashrama system is necessary, it takes a backseat when trying to get people into God consciousness. Truth would come out in the end with or without westerners, considering they spread the lies in the first place. It'll come out faster with their help. Ask any Madhvacharya followers. Why, when I could quote Madhvacarya himself? http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-04-13.html svabhaviko brahmanadih samadyaireva bhidyate yonibhedakrto bhedo jneya caupadhikastvayam (Gita Tatparya 4.13) Here's a line in the original sanskrit of his commentary. The keyword there is svabhaviko, which means inherent. He bases this on quality, not birth. However, there is an actual seminal birth by caste, and it's done by the garbhadana purification process. It's the only birth by caste concept that works. Care to give any quotes. Here's ONE of MANY quotes. Unfortunately they are in an unsupported font and hard to copy and paste, but here's one. Mahabharata Vana-parva, Chapter 180 sarpa uvaca brahmanah ko bhaved rajan vedyam kim ca yudhishthira bravihy ati-matim tvam hi vakyair anumimimahe yudhishthira uvaca satyam danam kshama-shilam anrishamsyam tapo ghrina drishyante yatra nagendra sa brahmana iti smritah sarpa uvaca shudreshv api ca satyam ca danam akrodha eva ca anrishamsyam ahimsa ca ghrina caiva yudhishthira yudhishthira uvaca shudre tu yad bhavel lakshma dvije tac ca na vidyate na vai shudro bhavec chudro brahmano na ca brahmanah yatraital lakshyate sarpa vrittam sa brahmanah smritah yatraitan na bhavet sarpa tam shudram iti nirdishet “The snake asked: O Maharaja Yudhishthira, who is a brahmana, and what is the object of knowledge? You are very intelligent, therefore I will be enlightened by your statement. “Maharaja Yudhishthira replied: A person who possesses truthfulness, charity, forgiveness, sobriety, gentleness, austerity, and lack of hatred is called a brahmana. “The snake said: Shudras also possess truthfulness, charity, freedom from anger, nonviolence, noneviousness, and lack of hatred. “Maharaja Yudhishthira replied to this: If such symptoms are found in a shudra he should never be called a shudra, just as a brahmana is not a brahmana if he does not possess these qualities. “O snake, only a person who is endowed with the characteristics of a brahmana can be called a brahmana, otherwise he is a shudra.” This is one vary exceptional case and this he achieved after thousand of years. They were never called Kshatriyya, infect Dronacarya’s son Asvasthama having killed the Pandava’s son even then Dropadi referred to him as Brahmin. That wasn't on the battlefield. That was when he was captured by Arjuna for killing Draupadi's five sons in cold blood, and then he tried to kill the unborn Pariksit in the womb of his mother. Even after seeing the Lord in his Virat rup Arjun is calling Karan, the Sut putra even though he is a great warrior. Birth is one’s pahechan there is no escaping that but a noble person is Dhira not disturbed by all this, one’s job is to know the truth and in pursuit of this there is no loss, if I fail than there will be a better chance later. Death is a great leveller. Just because Karna was the "son of a suta" (which he wasn't) does not mean he's a suta. It means' his father was a suta... Gita chapter one, The everlasting qualities of Varna and family traditions of those who destroy their family are ruined by the sinful act of illegitimacy. (1.43) This is one clear indication of birth varna connection. We have been told, O Krishna, that people whose family traditions are destroyed necessarily dwell in hell for a long time. (1.44) Now Arjun was worried about kula dharma what would that be I ask? Because some of you may have us believe it could be any number of four. I think you need to get your sanskrit translations checked. utsanna-kula-dharmāṇāḿ manuṣyāṇāḿ janārdana narake niyataḿ vāso bhavatīty anuśuśruma Here's the sanskrit for 1.43. There is no mention of varna, just family tradition. Here's someone elses translation of that verse. http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-01-37.html Here's Prabhupada's, http://vedabase.net/bg/1/43/en He was born off Parasarmuni, one’s gotra is always known by the fathers. Not out of wedlock. Formal if he keeps up then my Pranam and all good wishes but I have seen much too often the falling from grace, what was the word they used, oh yes, spaced out. You're making assumptions. There are plenty of people who have taken up the brahmanical way of life. Especially westerners, and not just ISKCON. You can find westerners in other sampradaya's as well. The later is a product of poverty, if he is earning his keep honestly and does not neglect his dharma then he surely will have chance to progress, if not he would have wasted his good karma and regress in to lower form of life. Jai Shree Krishna Why would poverty bother a brahmana? They're suppose to live in simple places anyway. Isn't austerity one of their qualities? BG 18.42: Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness — these are the natural qualities by which the brāhmaṇas work. Sorry, but the later, despite being born in a brahmana family, is not a brahmana. The former, despite being born in a mleccha family, is a brahmana, or at least an aspiring vaishnava. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Raksasah kalim ashritya Jayante brahma-yonishu " In the Kali-yuga demons take birth in the families of brahmins." Varaha Purana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted February 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Pranam That's an allegory. Most of the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is an allegory. Lord Krsna was trying to tell the people how great He is, and he uses allegorical accounts to make a point. Now that is new for me, just like a new defination of atheist. Quote: <TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=24>Do you accept Shiva Gita of the Puran? No one off Sakracharya followers would accept this. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> They really have no choice. The Padma Purana is a Vedic text. If they reject it, what can they accept then? Well let me explain this again, the puran under discussion was Padma puran so let me make this clear do you except Siva Gita of Padma puran? Why, when I could quote Madhvacarya himself? http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-04-13.html svabhaviko brahmanadih samadyaireva bhidyate yonibhedakrto bhedo jneya caupadhikastvayam (Gita Tatparya 4.13) Here's a line in the original sanskrit of his commentary. The keyword there is svabhaviko, which means inherent. He bases this on quality, not birth. However, there is an actual seminal birth by caste, and it's done by the garbhadana purification process. It's the only birth by caste concept that works. Sloka you quote, does not actual say the verna is determined by any particular means, simply states that one is born with some inherent quality. Now how would you judge this, without making mistakes, such a task is beyond human faculty. Finally an admission that there actually is a seminal birth by caste how ever the qualification. Mahabharata Vana-parva, Chapter 180 “Maharaja Yudhishthira replied to this: If such symptoms are found in a shudra he should never be called a shudra, just as a brahmana is not a brahmana if he does not possess these qualities. “O snake, only a person who is endowed with the characteristics of a brahmana can be called a brahmana, otherwise he is a shudra.” Here is a tacit admission that ones (pahechan) recognisation primarily is by birth but Maharaj further qualified, if they don’t saw that quality then they disqualify themselves. But no where it admits that the varna has changed. Take for example Youdhister Maharaj or Bhismapita endowed with quality par excellence never have they been addressed as any thing but Kstriya. That wasn't on the battlefield. That was when he was captured by Arjuna for killing Draupadi's five sons in cold blood, and then he tried to kill the unborn Pariksit in the womb of his mother. In your haste of making him a Kstriya on the battlefield, you forget that he committed a heinous crime so in your book he should be worst then a sudra, but yet you admit that he was called a Brahmin. Just because Karna was the "son of a suta" (which he wasn't) does not mean he's a suta. It means' his father was a suta… Yes I know that, you know that yet Arjun at the time was not to know, even though Karna was a great warrior he was address as sutaPutra, there is no doubt Arjun was addressing him off his apprent low birth therefore not worthy of him to fight with, can you see the point? I think you need to get your sanskrit translations checked. Here's the sanskrit for 1.43. There is no mention of varna, just family tradition. Do you know the meaning of Kula, What was the family tradition of Arjun was it Brahmin, Vaisya or Sudra? You're making assumptions. There are plenty of people who have taken up the brahmanical way of life. Especially westerners, and not just ISKCON. You can find westerners in other sampradaya's as well. My assumption are based on facts, have you ever consider the statistic of dropout rate. It would be very interesting read. don’t get me wrong, my hats off, to who ever cultivates Brahmincal quality, what is there any need of varna designation, a devotee of the lord needs no varna. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyros Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Now that is new for me, just like a new defination of atheist. No, allegories and examples are constantly used in the Upanisads. Well let me explain this again, the puran under discussion was Padma puran so let me make this clear do you except Siva Gita of Padma puran? I accept all Vedic texts. They all have a purpose. I accept the Shiva Purana, Siva Gita, and the Siva Tantras. Sloka you quote, does not actual say the verna is determined by any particular means, simply states that one is born with some inherent quality. Now how would you judge this, without making mistakes, such a task is beyond human faculty. Common sense is not beyond human faculty. There are many descriptions of brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras in the Vedas. Finally an admission that there actually is a seminal birth by caste how ever the qualification. Qualities still take precedence over birth by caste with the garbhadana ceremony. Here is a tacit admission that ones (pahechan) recognisation primarily is by birth but Maharaj further qualified, if they don’t saw that quality then they disqualify themselves. But no where it admits that the varna has changed. No, it doesn't, he bases it on qualities. It does not get more clear than this. Take for example Youdhister Maharaj or Bhismapita endowed with quality par excellence never have they been addressed as any thing but Kstriya. But they were still mostly endowed with the qualities of a kshatriya. Those kinds of kshatriyas are called rajarsi's; saintly kings. In your haste of making him a Kstriya on the battlefield, you forget that he committed a heinous crime so in your book he should be worst then a sudra, but yet you admit that he was called a Brahmin. No I didn't. He should've gotten his head cut off. Ironically, Asvathama is going to be the next Vyasa... Yes I know that, you know that yet Arjun at the time was not to know, even though Karna was a great warrior he was address as sutaPutra, there is no doubt Arjun was addressing him off his apprent low birth therefore not worthy of him to fight with, can you see the point? Say you're father is a business man, but you take up the profession of a doctor. Despite your profession, you are still the son of a businessman. Similarly, Karna, while a kshatriya, was still a son of a suta. Do you know the meaning of Kula, What was the family tradition of Arjun was it Brahmin, Vaisya or Sudra? Following the Vedic way of life. My assumption are based on facts, have you ever consider the statistic of dropout rate. It would be very interesting read. As I type, many people are leaving ISKCON, but many more are joining or taking it up. Things aren't as bad as they were back in the 80's, but ISKCON still grew. don’t get me wrong, my hats off, to who ever cultivates Brahmincal quality, what is there any need of varna designation, a devotee of the lord needs no varna. Jai Shree Krishna Yes. Hare Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted February 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Pranam No, allegories and examples are constantly used in the Upanisads. That is fine I don’t deny that allegories are present in sastras but Gita that is news to me. Did Lord Krishna say anything to that affect to Arjun? Question was in what various forms may I worship you was it not? And Lord Krishna answers hear my main manifestation, now if that equates to allegories you can have it. I accept all Vedic texts. They all have a purpose. I accept the Shiva Purana, Siva Gita, and the Siva Tantras. Ah ha I hear a but in the form of 'purpose' otherwise I would post it for you, but what’s the point you only try and find an excuse around it. Common sense is not beyond human faculty. There are many descriptions of brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras in the Vedas. Humans are inherently prone to making mistakes. Quote: <TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=62>In your haste of making him a Kstriya on the battlefield, you forget that he committed a heinous crime so in your book he should be worst then a sudra, but yet you admit that he was called a Brahmin. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> No I didn't. He should've gotten his head cut off. Ironically, Asvathama is going to be the next Vyasa… It does not matter what you think, it is enough Draupadi had no problem with calling him a Brahmin. Say you're father is a business man, but you take up the profession of a doctor. Despite your profession, you are still the son of a businessman. Similarly, Karna, while a kshatriya, was still a son of a suta. There is no escaping Arjun always meant and taunted him of his apparent low birth. But I also like your example, you see a brahmana child will always be known as a brahmana’s son. The Brahmin thread and training is given at an early age, that how the system was and is. Quote: <TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=43>Do you know the meaning of Kula, What was the family tradition of Arjun was it Brahmin, Vaisya or Sudra? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> Following the Vedic way of life. Now you are evading the answer. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyros Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 That is fine I don’t deny that allegories are present in sastras but Gita that is news to me. Did Lord Krishna say anything to that affect to Arjun? Question was in what various forms may I worship you was it not? And Lord Krishna answers hear my main manifestation, now if that equates to allegories you can have it. Yes, but Arjuna did ask about his opulences to. Lord Krsna answered Arjuna how he can be remembered by his opulences. This is mentioned before he starts explaining them. Ah ha I hear a but in the form of 'purpose' otherwise I would post it for you, but what’s the point you only try and find an excuse around it. Not at all. There really is nothing for me to hide. I assume you're one of those people confused about Lord Visnu and Lord Siva's actual position. Well let me tell you. Lord Visnu is Supreme; Lord Siva is not. That's the conclusion of the sastras. The purpose of the Siva Gita, Siva Purana's, Siva Tantra, and anything else that places Lord Siva above Lord Visnu is explained in the Padma Purana. Call it an excuse if you want, but it's a true excuse. It does not matter what you think, it is enough Draupadi had no problem with calling him a Brahmin. Lord Krsna and Arjuna didn't consider him a Brahmana; neither did the rest of the Pandavas. That's many against one, and one of them is God himself. Your choice. There is no escaping Arjun always meant and taunted him of his apparent low birth. Have you forgotten what Karna has done? After all he's done, why would Arjuna give any respect to him? I would offer you quotes of Lord Krsna condemning Arjuna for repeatedly calling Karna "suta-putra," but I have none until I look it up. But I also like your example, you see a brahmana child will always be known as a brahmana’s son. The Brahmin thread and training is given at an early age, that how the system was and is. There's a story of two brahmana born boys who ended up being even lower than mlecchas. They were beat and/or kill people, kidnap people, raped women, eat cow beef, among other things. They were known as sons of a brahmana, but they were offered no respect. The brahmin thread means nothing if their nature isn't that of a brahmana. It's just a costume, and the less intelligent class of men follow them around just dogs. You can live with that kind of concept if you want, but it's never the Vedic way. I suppose you would even pay obeisances to that "Brahmin" atheist and wash his feet when he comes to your house? Now you are evading the answer. Jai Shree Krishna There is a reason why it's called "Vedic" culture. How one is suppose to act, is based on the scriptures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Pranam Not at all. There really is nothing for me to hide. I assume you're one of those people confused about Lord Visnu and Lord Siva's actual position. Not at all. Well let me tell you. Your telling me has no value. Call it an excuse if you want, but it's a true excuse. Lets face it, those who disagree find their version of "true excuse" reading the same Shastra, but I am going to leave it at that. Lord Krsna and Arjuna didn't consider him a Brahmana; neither did the rest of the Pandavas.That's many against one, and one of them is God himself. Your choice Care to back up your statement. Even if it true draupadi acknowledge it and Arjun acted upon her request, that is enough. Have you forgotten what Karna has done? After all he's done, why would Arjuna give any respect to him? I am well aware of what he had done, but their feud was well before that, it started when the Raj Kumars were having to display their ability. Do you know the story? I would offer you quotes of Lord Krsna condemning Arjuna for repeatedly calling Karna "suta-putra," but I have none until I look it up. That is because Lord Krishna knew of his real birth. Let us have the quote any way. There's a story of two brahmana born boys who ended up being even lower than mlecchas. They were beat and/or kill people, kidnap people, raped women, eat cow beef, among other things. They were known as sons of a brahmana, but they were offered no respect. No one can argue there. The brahmin thread means nothing if their nature isn't that of a brahmana. It's just a costume, and the less intelligent class of men follow them around just dogs. You can live with that kind of concept if you want, but it's never the Vedic way. This statement would apply to any profession, still the fact remains that ones verna is determined by birth and the training starts at an early age. I suppose you would even pay obeisances to that "Brahmin" atheist and wash his feet when he comes to your house? Better to pay obeisance to a Brahmin then to a pretender. An atheist would not pretend to command such a respect. There is a reason why it's called "Vedic" culture. How one is suppose to act, is based on the scriptures. Again you are evading the question, Arjun was clearly worried about his Kula and family tradition and his ancestors more specifically ‘Varna Shankara’ meaning destroying the Varna do you want me to quote the verse? PS this will be my last post on Varna hear, if you want take it to Brahmana thread. Jai Shree Kerishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyros Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Lets face it, those who disagree find their version of "true excuse" reading the same Shastra, but I am going to leave it at that. It only takes common sense to understand the difference. You can't reject Puranas like the Padma Purana, or Matsya Purana (which also mentions Puranas glorifying Lord Siva to be tamasic in general, and itself IS a Purana that glorifies Lord Siva). Bhagavad Gita 14.17 sattvāt sañjāyate jñānaḿ rajaso lobha eva ca pramāda-mohau tamaso bhavato 'jñānam eva ca From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion. Sattvic Puranas glorfy Lord Visnu, tamasic Puranas glorify Lord Siva. People just don't want to admit the truth. That's not my problem, that's theirs Even sruti-sastra confirms Lord Visnu's supremecy. Rg Veda 1.22.20 tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah diviva caksur atatam visnor yat paramam padam "Those who are entirely devoted to Lord Vishnu,after death, go to the supreme spiritual planet, where they lead eternal lives under the thralldom of His superior, internal energy." The sruti is filled with them. Clear? Care to back up your statement. SB 1.7.33 tata āsādya tarasā dāruṇaḿ gautamī-sutam babandhāmarṣa-tāmrākṣaḥ paśuḿ raśanayā yathā Arjuna, his eyes blazing in anger like two red balls of copper, dexterously arrested the son of Gautamī and bound him with ropes like an animal. SB 1.7.35 mainaḿ pārthārhasi trātuḿ brahma-bandhum imaḿ jahi yo 'sāv anāgasaḥ suptān avadhīn niśi bālakān Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: O Arjuna, you should not show mercy by releasing this relative of a brāhmaṇa [brahma-bandhu], for he has killed innocent boys in their sleep. Clear? Even if it true draupadi acknowledge it and Arjun acted upon her request, that is enough. Bhagavad Purana 1.7.53-54 śrī-bhagavān uvāca brahma-bandhur na hantavya ātatāyī vadhārhaṇaḥ mayaivobhayam āmnātaḿ paripāhy anuśāsanam kuru pratiśrutaḿ satyaḿ yat tat sāntvayatā priyām priyaḿ ca bhīmasenasya pāñcālyā mahyam eva ca The Personality of Godhead Sri Kṛṣṇa said: A friend of a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor he must be killed. All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly. You have to fulfill your promise to your wife, and you must also act to the satisfaction of Bhīmasena and Me. The keyword in this verse is brahma-bandhur. Lord Krsna (God) does not even consider Asvattama a brahmana, but a friend of a brahmana and must be killed. Bhagavad Purana 1.7.55 sūta uvāca arjunaḥ sahasājñāya harer hārdam athāsinā maṇiḿ jahāra mūrdhanyaḿ dvijasya saha-mūrdhajam Just then Arjuna could understand the motive of the Lord by His equivocal orders, and thus with his sword he severed both hair and jewel from the head of Aśvatthāmā. Draupadi may have spared Asvatthama, but Lord Krsna (GOD) and Bhima wanted him dead. Clear? I am well aware of what he had done, but their feud was well before that, it started when the Raj Kumars were having to display their ability. Do you know the story? That is because Lord Krishna knew of his real birth. Let us have the quote any way. Despite all that, he still never called Karna directly a "suta." He only made fun of his heritage, not himself. This statement would apply to any profession, still the fact remains that ones verna is determined by birth and the training starts at an early age. Mahabharata Anusasana-parva 143.50 na yonir napi samskaro na srutam na ca santatih karanani dvijatvasya vrttam eva tu karanam "Neither birth, nor samskaras , nor learning, nor progeny are the qualifications to be a brahmana . Only brahminical conduct is the basis for brahminical status." Clear? Better to pay obeisance to a Brahmin then to a pretender. An atheist would not pretend to command such a respect. And you wonder why the people of India was so easily brainwashed by the British? I rest my case. Again you are evading the question, Arjun was clearly worried about his Kula and family tradition and his ancestors more specifically ‘Varna Shankara’ meaning destroying the Varna do you want me to quote the verse? Jai Shree Krishna Arjuna's family tradition was to live according to the Vedas, as was everybody elses. Better to pay obeisance to a Brahmin then to a pretender. An atheist would not pretend to command such a respect. And you wonder why the people of India was so easily brainwashed by the British? I rest my case. Again you are evading the question, Arjun was clearly worried about his Kula and family tradition and his ancestors more specifically ‘Varna Shankara’ meaning destroying the Varna do you want me to quote the verse? Jai Shree Krishna Arjuna's family tradition was to live according to the Vedas, as was everybody elses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Pranam Where is the edit features gone? i can not edit my post any help? Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyros Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 The edit feature goes away after some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.