Mantra to Create a Business ???

[Halysson]

 

Saraswati is a giver of knowledge.Knowledge in itself may not help in business.

Companion

I know already of that. The mantras of Saraswati are not alone for studies, but also to have creativity and etc.....

Many musicians, writers, painters and etc.... they use the mantras of Saraswati.

Is what I want to know, which mantra to have creativity in the business or to create a business?

But I already found the answer in the mantra above.

[raghu]

 

Yo us simply dont understand what i said.Yo were wrong in your point with theist.Anyway you stop dragging krishna and prabupada unnecesarily and dont act cheeky.Certainly your cheeky attitude is not very nice.

 

Once again for the cognitively challenged:

 

1) Theist wrote that one cannot worship other "demigods" and have Krishna too.

 

2) Theist follows A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

 

3) Prabhupada wrote in his Nectar of Devotion that all Vaishnavas should begin their worship with worship of Ganapati.

 

4) Ganapati is in the "other demigod" category, as Hare Krishna see it.

 

QED either Theist is incorrect (again) or Theist's favorite guru is incorrect.

 

Please note: I am not taking a position on this either way. I don't really care one way or another what you believe. I only quoted this to show how once again Theist's narrow-minded thinking seems to lack a basis in the views of the guru he claims to follow.

[raghu]

 

I have no doubt about Krishna. I accept the Acharya's views on Krishna. But I do not agree that that view is based on Vedas.

 

The brahmins were a class of people who were chosen to learn the Vedas and remember them so that they were not lost. These were the days when there was no writing and the written material were destroyed by white ants. It was not possible to inscribe the Vedas in Stone, as they were too voluminous.

 

These class of people were chosen because of their qualifications like correct pronunciation, excellent memory, application etc. They were not chosen by birth.

 

Later this became a profession by birth. But that is a corruption of the original system.

 

Really? Can you quote scriptural evidence that varna was originally not related by birth? Note that I am asking for evidence that this was the general view, not exceptions. Because from what I can see, and based on the Vedic literatures that we all know and accept, there is plenty of evidence that people were chosen based on their birth, and then forced into following the system that made them qualified. Let us look at a few examples:

 

Rama was born to Maharaja Dasharatha. Dasharatha was a kshatriya, and so Rama and His brothers were all kshatriyas.

 

Arjuna was born as a kshatriya, and he was required to adhere to his kshatriya duty. He was not allowed to give up fighting and become a brahmin.

 

Drona was a brahmin by birth, yet he took the profession of a kshatriya. Still, he was referred to as a brahmin throughout the Mahabharata.

 

Ashvatthama was a brahmin by birth, being Drona's son. Despite being a murderer of children he was still referred to as a brahmin.

 

Other examples of people whose varna followed from their birth: all of the Pandavas, all of the Kshatriyas, Parashurama, all of the warriors who fought on Kurukshetra battlefield, practically all of the kings who are named in all of the puranas and epics, all of the brahmins mentioned in the same, etc.

 

Now against this evidence I can think of only two exceptions.

 

Vishvamitra - he was a kshatriya and only became a brahmarishi after thousands of years of penance.

 

Vyasa - he was the son of Parasara Muni and a fisherman's daughter.

 

However, these appear to be exceptions instead of the rule.

 

In summary, your view that birth was not relevant to varna in the classical tradition appears to be politically-correct, Neo-Vedantic white wash with little basis in the facts.

 

The actual evidence indicates that people were known by the varna of their birth and expected to follow the standards of that varna. If they did not follow the standards of that varna, they were known as members of that varna by convention but no one was under any illusion that that made them special in anyway. Ashvatthama was a murderer, and he was spared because he was a brahmin, but in the end he was still a murderer. Calling him a brahmin served to emphasize the contrast between the standard he was supposed to follow and the actual level of his degradation.

 

Of course, with Neo-Hindus today, including Hare Krishnas, the thinking is that if someone is called a brahmin, then he is somehow usurping a position that he does not deserve. They say that this is caste gosvami bigotry or something to that effect, even though it is the same culture practiced in the Vedic age. They say that one's qualification determines one's varna, which is certainly a nice thought but.... so far we have yet to see a practical means by which one's qualification can be determined by the masses. On the contrary, we see that Prabhupada (whom Hare Krishnas regard as a pure devotee of faultless vision and judgement) initiated many degraded Westerners as brahmins, and most of these so-called qualified brahmins fell down and became degraded. So if even Prabhupada could not determine their qualification, how can the masses?

 

Practically speaking, the seminal system of determining varna makes more sense. If you are born a brahmin then you should be raised a brahmin, which includes all of the standards of austerity and respect that come with the position. It isn't black and white you see. Brahmins are supposed to be respected. But then they are also supposed to live in poverty and make their living based purely on religious pursuits. Many people who agitate about social inequality do not seem to understand that.

 

The actual corruption is not that birth is a prerequisite for varna. The corruption is that members of all varnas are to some extent not really following their varnashrama strictly.

[Kali_Upasaka]

You are talking about Puranas/Itihasas which came thousands of years after the Rig Vedic period about which I am talking about. I have talked and written about this extensively in many seminars.

 

But this is all old hat.

[kaisersose]

 

You are talking about Puranas/Itihasas which came thousands of years after the Rig Vedic period about which I am talking about. I have talked and written about this extensively in many seminars.

 

But this is all old hat.

 

That is interesting. Can point me to this evidence from the Rig Vedic period? There is evidence from the Upanishads of a Brahmana Gotra being a prerequisite for eligibility to learn. Unless, you are maintaining that these Upanishads came later too.

 

I would also like to know when you think the system changed to a birth based system.

 

Thanks

[Kali_Upasaka]

The upanishads came in thousands of years later than the beginning of the Vedic period.

 

The practices which disappeared over a period of thousands of years

 

1. Burial of the Dead. The dead were buried in the early Vedic period. Even today there are Hindu communities where the dead are buried.

 

2. Authority for women to learn and recite the Vedas. Women were invested with Yagnopaveedha which is the only qualification required for learning Vedas.

 

3. The Varna system became by birth rather than by qualification.

 

It is impossible to say when these changes occurred and the changes in the society which made these changes necessary.

 

There are a number of activists who would like to undo the changes. An organization was started in Pune to train women as Purohits decades back. There are a number of women Purohits in Pune now. I am told that they are preferred over men.

 

About learning Vedas, a number of attempts have been made to bring all castes to Veda patashalas. Not all of them. At least some of them by Acharyas who would like to follow the example of Sage Goutama. ( of Sathyakama Jabala fame). But with very little success.

 

The reason is very simple. No income. The Brahmins did well under the British rule. But only those Brahmins who gave up the recitation of Vedas and took to English education. The Veda reciting Brahmin was treated with contempt by the British. They were poor and they continue to be poor.

 

In fact it is the poverty of the Brahmins which drove them to give up their traditional profession and take to English education.

[sant]

.

) Theist wrote that one cannot worship other "demigods" and have Krishna too.

 

Youve written half.Heres what thiest said and what he meant

 

Can't worship some demi-god or the things of this world and expect to also have Krishna too. Or in Arjuna's case it would be familial ties and worldly piety

Ok i got you .Thiest must have made a mistake .Im sorry.

[kaisersose]

 

The practices which disappeared over a period of thousands of years

 

1. Burial of the Dead. The dead were buried in the early Vedic period. Even today there are Hindu communities where the dead are buried.

 

2. Authority for women to learn and recite the Vedas. Women were invested with Yagnopaveedha which is the only qualification required for learning Vedas.

 

3. The Varna system became by birth rather than by qualification.

 

Can you please post your evidence for #3?

 

Thanks

[kaisersose]

 

Once again for the cognitively challenged:

 

1) Theist wrote that one cannot worship other "demigods" and have Krishna too.

 

To further clarify, "demi-gods" are Gods of Indian origin. They are demi-Gods even if they are worshipped as the Supreme being by their followers. However, foreign Gods like Yahweh, Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc., are not demi-Gods.

 

This is the transcendental nature of the soul - to define the quality of Gods by geography! If you disagree, you are a rabid Hindu and will go on the ignore list.

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

Can you please post your evidence for #3?

 

Thanks

 

Better yet, can you post your evidence for everything you have claimed?

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

Can you please post your evidence for #3?

 

Thanks

I do not want to enter this highly controversial subject. There is a lot of evidence for this. But the question is whether one wants to accept this. This topic is closed.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

Better yet, can you post your evidence for everything you have claimed?

 

I do not want to claim anything. These are based on academic research. Take or leave it. Subject closed.

[theist]

. Quote:

) Theist wrote that one cannot worship other "demigods" and have Krishna too.

Youve written half.Heres what thiest said and what he meant

Quote:

Can't worship some demi-god or the things of this world and expect to also have Krishna too. Or in Arjuna's case it would be familial ties and worldly piety

Ok i got you .Thiest must have made a mistake .Im sorry.

 

 

This is still being discussed? hear is the difference. A devotee may ask for help in removing his impediments for performing devotional service to krishna from Ganesh or anyone superior that can help. The objective is Krishna NOT MUNDANE BUSINESS.

 

You cannot have a love for money and Krishna too, "The Lord is a jealous God" in some peoples parlance.

 

An example is the gopis who worshiop Goddess Katyayani? to have a good husband but they only wanted Krishna as their husband.

 

Some disciples in the 70's wanted to worshipnGanesh to get money "for Krishna's service" and Srila Prabhupada said only those who donated him $100,000 a month could do so.

 

No one did.

[sant]

 

. Quote:

) Theist wrote that one cannot worship other "demigods" and have Krishna too.

 

Youve written half.Heres what thiest said and what he meant

Quote:

Can't worship some demi-god or the things of this world and expect to also have Krishna too. Or in Arjuna's case it would be familial ties and worldly piety

Ok i got you .Thiest must have made a mistake .Im sorry.

 

 

This is still being discussed? hear is the difference. A devotee may ask for help in removing his impediments for performing devotional service to krishna from Ganesh or anyone superior that can help. The objective is Krishna NOT MUNDANE BUSINESS.

 

You cannot have a love for money and Krishna too, "The Lord is a jealous God" in some peoples parlance.

 

An example is the gopis who worshiop Goddess Katyayani? to have a good husband but they only wanted Krishna as their husband.

 

Some disciples in the 70's wanted to worshipnGanesh to get money "for Krishna's service" and Srila Prabhupada said only those who donated him $100,000 a month could do so.

You shouldnt have left things half said raghu likes to attack you.and he will do it in every given way.

[kaisersose]

 

You shouldnt have left things half said raghu likes to attack you.and he will do it in every given way.

 

Leaving your thought half-said is bad as people will not understand what you are saying.

 

By your own admission, theist left his thoguhts half-said and then due to Raghu, he wrote his full thoughts. This would never have happened without Raghu...isnt that a good thing?

 

You should actually be happy about it!

 

Cheers

[sant]

 

Leaving your thought half-said is bad as people will not understand what you are saying.

 

By your own admission, theist left his thoguhts half-said and then due to Raghu, he wrote his full thoughts. This would never have happened without Raghu...isnt that a good thing?

 

You should actually be happy about it!

 

Cheers

 

Raghu did it for the sake of attacking.Anyway thank you raghu or clearing kaiserose's doubts.

[theist]

 

You shouldnt have left things half said raghu likes to attack you.and he will do it in every given way.

 

Thank you sant. You have a natural tendancy to watch out and protect others. Several times I have noticed this.

 

Well not every statement should require such a detailed explanation. If that were the case every post here would become a small book.

 

Krishna speaks in the gita that those who worship the demi-gods are really worshipping Him in a wrong way as ultimately He is the only grantor of boons.

 

We all need to be educated that as parts and parcels of Krishna our birthright is that we have a direct access to the Supreme Father to ask for anything.

 

We don't need priests to talk to God for us nor do we need demigods to provide shelter from the storms of life. Reference Krishna lifting Govardhana Hill to protect His devotees from Indra's wrath.

 

Only Krishna is our shelter, protector and provider.

[sambya]

 

Krishna speaks in the gita that those who worship the demi-gods are really worshipping Him in a wrong way as ultimately He is the only grantor of boons.

 

 

wrong way ? show me where was the word used !!

[sant]

 

Well not every statement should require such a detailed explanation. If that were the case every post here would become a small book.

 

Krishna speaks in the gita that those who worship the demi-gods are really worshipping Him in a wrong way as ultimately He is the only grantor of boons.

 

We all need to be educated that as parts and parcels of Krishna our birthright is that we have a direct access to the Supreme Father to ask for anything.

 

We don't need priests to talk to God for us nor do we need demigods to provide shelter from the storms of life. Referrence krishna lifting Govardhana Hill to protect His devotees from Indra's wrath.

 

Only Krishna is our shelter, protector and provider.

Ofcourse i know but when you said that you cant have any demigod before krishna raghu ji had posted the nectar of devotion part.I told him its adonre in a ritualistic way for ritualistic poojas but he was stuck on the words you said-'you cant have any other demigod before krishna'

this was taken in the literal sense by raghu and his base for saying it was actually right in a way if you take these lines only.But you later did tell about the money part in the same line which shows which context you were talking and why you said it in your discussion with chandu.

[theist]

 

wrong way ? show me where was the word used !!

 

It was a word used to convey the same thought and not intended as a word for word quote.

 

The original was sankrit anyway. But here you go.

Bg 9.23

TEXT 23

TEXT

ye 'py anya-devatā-bhaktā

yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ

te 'pi mām eva kaunteya

yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam

SYNONYMS

ye—those; api—also; anya—other; devatā—demigods; bhaktāḥ—devotees; yajante—worship; śraddhaya-anvitāḥ—with faith; te—they; api—also; mām—Me; eva—even; kaunteya-O son of Kuntī; yajanti—sacrifice; avidhi-pūrvakam—in a wrong way.

TRANSLATION BG 9.23

 

Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kuntī, is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding.

[sant]

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 9.23

ye 'py anya-devatā-bhaktā

yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ

te 'pi mām eva kaunteya

yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam

SYNONYMS

ye — those who; api — also; anya — of other; devatā — gods; bhaktāḥ — devotees; yajante — worship; śraddhayā anvitāḥ — with faith; te — they; api — also; mām — Me; eva — only; kaunteya — O son of Kuntī; yajanti — they worship; avidhi-pūrvakam — in a wrong way.

TRANSLATION

Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kuntī, but they do so in a wrong way.

PURPORT

"Persons who are engaged in the worship of demigods are not very intelligent, although such worship is offered to Me indirectly," Kṛṣṇa says. For example, when a man pours water on the leaves and branches of a tree without pouring water on the root, he does so without sufficient knowledge or without observing regulative principles. Similarly, the process of rendering service to different parts of the body is to supply food to the stomach. The demigods are, so to speak, different officers and directors in the government of the Supreme Lord. One has to follow the laws made by the government, not by the officers or directors. Similarly, everyone is to offer his worship to the Supreme Lord only. That will automatically satisfy the different officers and directors of the Lord. The officers and directors are engaged as representatives of the government, and to offer some bribe to the officers and directors is illegal. This is stated here as avidhi-pūrvakam. In other words, Kṛṣṇa does not approve the unnecessary worship of the demigods.

[melvin]

 

:smash:Please Urgent...

Do I want to know if someone, in this forum, knows a mantra in order that inspiration has been in creating a business that provides financial prosperity to me?

 

Thanks,

Halysson

 

Try posting this maxim in front of your store: " Credit is good but we need cash."

[sant]

You can pray to god for whatever to want but since you wanted some mantraor solution without saying demigod or god take this .

http://www.shanidham.in/mysolution.php?catcode=2

here hes given other solution also for business but cant find them now.

[sambya]

 

ye 'py anya-devatā-bhaktā

yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ

te 'pi mām eva kaunteya

yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam

SYNONYMS

ye — those who; api — also; anya — of other; devatā — gods; bhaktāḥ — devotees; yajante — worship; śraddhayā anvitāḥ — with faith; te — they; api — also; mām — Me; eva — only; kaunteya — O son of Kuntī; yajanti — they worship; avidhi-pūrvakam — in a wrong way.

well , when viewed independently vidhi can be interpreted as rule , dictum , manner , method , usage or way .

 

a-vidhi-purvaka would mean "out of the common way" or "out of norms" . they do not mean "wrong" in strict sense !

 

and krishna is clearly saying that those who worship devas with faith also worship him which is out of norms . now , its but obvious that if someone does not worship krishna directly and worship him indirectly it shall be "out of norms" .

 

here krishna is definately placed in the highest position but other forms of worship are not termed as wrong !

 

most importantly if krishna saw something absolutely wrong in deva worship he would have directly said -- those who worship devas are wrong . he would'nt have started by saying that they also eventually worship him and he would have used the specific word of wrong such as mithya , paap , doshpurna etc .

 

without the use of such a word i see no reason why the words 'a-vidhi' are to be interpreted as 'wrong' !!!!

[theist]

Hahaha sambya. Think before you pick a fight. Ask yourself, "Is it really worth it?"